<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">Thanks for the heavy lifting here Kathy. I belatedly read the document and I can tell you now your arguments are compelling.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, thank you, Steve, Graeme and All. I know
a lot of people have spent a lot of
time in the IP and Registrar Communities working on this draft. Tx
you – and appreciate
your invitation to comments and concerns! <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have reviewed the Draft carefully and have
some initial
comments to share.<span> </span>Although
I spoke with
people in the WG while preparing them, these comments are my
own.(If there is problem with the formatting below, please let me
know.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span><span>1.<span> </span></span></span>General
Comments<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span><span>a.<span>
</span></span></span>`Let’s make the wording more neutral.
Let’s add “alleged”
or “claimed” in all references of infringement (e.g., trademarks,
copyrights of
domain names/websites. Another good term would be “claimed
infringement” -- which
is the one used in similar sections of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act to
the sections we are working on here.<span>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p><span><span>2.<span>
</span></span></span>More substantive comments<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span><span>a.<span>
</span></span></span>Are we missing levels of protections for
the
Customer/Registrant?<span> </span>In
the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA), there were two levels of protections for the
“users.”<span> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"><span><span><span>
</span>i.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>The first was sanctions for
misrepresentation. Basically,
any company which knowingly materially misrepresents that material
or activity
is infringing is liable for damages, including costs and attorney
fees caused from
injury resulting from the misrepresentation. Don’t we need similar
sanctions
here?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"><span><span><span>
</span>ii.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>A much higher bar for revealing the
identity of
the alleged infringer. The DMCA allows rapid takedown based on
statements very
similar to the one we proposing, but Reveal is a whole different
story.<span> </span>The standard is
much higher and goes through Court. Thus US Copyright Code, Sec
512(h), requires a subpoena to reveal data: <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>[Section
512] “(h) SUBPOENA TO
IDENTIFY INFRINGER-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>`(1)
REQUEST- A copyright owner or a
person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the
clerk of any
United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service
provider for
identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this
subsection… <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Shouldn’t we have a higher standard
too?<span> </span>It seems important
to balance the rights of
both sides, including whether the Allegation of Illegality
sufficiently
outweighs the Privacy Interests and Rights of the Battered
Women’s Shelter, Online
Magazine or Bloggers posting unpopular views of corruption.<span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>iii.<span>
</span></span></span><span>A deep
concern about default. As I
read the rules, if you don’t respond, you lose and your data is
revealed.<span> </span>But this is a
problem because we can think of
many reasons why Customers/Registrants would not respond. For
example: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Request
came at the beginning of
August, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span>b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Request
disappeared into spam; <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span>c.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Registrant/Customer
is unable to
respond (perhaps language barriers); and/or<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span>d.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Registrant/Customer
is scared to
respond. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>I would
submit that in something as
important as revealing identity and physical locations, there
should be no
automatic default. It is completely possible that a) the
allegations are
incorrect on their face (no jurisdictional overlap, for
example), or b) that
there are clear defenses on “its face,” e.g., on the website. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Thus, an
anti-bullying group may
post the copyrighted logo of a gang engaging in bullying (or
worse) in a local school
or neighborhood; is so, the gang’s allegation of copyright
infringement could
be clearly weighed against the “safe neighborhoods for all”
activity taking
place on the website. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Similarly,
an online publication in
Europe may have every right to use the logo and trademark of a
large
multinational it is criticizing, or the image of Mohammed,
without having its
identity and address revealed without due process. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Ditto for a
battered women’s shelter
posting a copyright logo, motto or design and urging women to
watch for it and
those bearing it.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Due process is not automatic
default, but a full and fair
review of the website and other reachable information, even if
the
Customer/Registrant is unable to respond for herself or himself.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:2.0in"><span><span>3.<span>
</span></span></span>Option: we might consider Third Party or
Independent
Review. This is something that Steve and Graeme’s draft have
already suggested
for rejections of IP Owner Requests. It could serve Customers too
by
creating a review of default situations – or perhaps an
independent forum for Service
Providers who choose to outsource this difficult evaluation. <span> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:2.0in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"><span><span><span>
</span>iv.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>Privacy of communication between
Customers and their Providers . The rules of Section III(A) seem
to bar private
communication with your Provider. Everything a Customer/Registrant
might write
to their Provider must be passed on verbatim (if I read this
correctly).<span> </span>But that’s a
problem for those with English
as a second language (or third) or those without lawyers, and
those simply trying to explain in clear and informal
language to explain this situation. 0<u></u><u></u><u></u><u></u>What
will happen, I am concerned, is that whatever informal response a
Customer provides to its Provider will operate (unintended) as an
Admission
Against Interest or an unintended Waiver.<span> </span><u></u><u></u><u></u> <u></u>
</p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in">Further,
the Customer/Registrant might inadvertently reveal a bit about
their identity
or even location – trying to explain their position clearly to the
Provider –
and this should not be passed on to the Requester automatically
either.
<u></u><u></u><u></u> <u></u>I am not sure of th answer here as IP
Owners should know something about the response, but not
necessarily the full communication of the Customer (e.g., he is
stalking me). <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for reading!<span> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kathy </p>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 3/2/2015 9:54 AM, Metalitz, Steven
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">PPSAI
WG members,
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Attached
please find an updated version of the document Graeme and I
circulated prior to last week’s meeting. This updated
version includes three or four wording tweaks, intended to
reflect the discussion on last week’s call. Looking forward
to further discussion on tomorrow’s call.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Steve
Metalitz
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><Metalitz>,
Steven <<a href="mailto:met@msk.com" target="_blank">met@msk.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57<br>
<b>To: </b>"'PPSAI (<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>)'"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F --
updated status report and text for discussion<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #b5c4df 4.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">PPSAI
WG members,
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">This
follows up on our note of Feb. 3 providing a status
report on subgroup discussions among some IP
interests and p/p service providers regarding p/p
disclosure standards. To reiterate, the group’s work
is not meant to obviate or displace the work of the
larger PPSAI WG on this issue – rather, it is meant to
constructively contribute to the discussion by
producing one proposal on this issue for the larger
group’s consideration. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In
light of further consideration and of the need to move
forward the WG discussion on Category F, we present
the attached document that we hope will help provide a
framework for discussion of the disclosure issue in
the WG. We emphasize that this is not a proposal from
IPC, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, or any subset of
either, and that we fully anticipate the text to be
modified and improved through further discussion at
the WG level. (We also acknowledge that the WG may
find the proposal wholly unsatisfactory but hope that
it will at least help advance debate.)
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The
attached is put forward as a starting point, to use
intellectual property infringement complaints as one
illustrative example of minimum disclosure standards,
in a framework that addresses (1) a service provider
process for intake of requests; (2) general templates
that requests would have to meet in order to trigger
service provider action; and (3) principles governing
service provider action in response to a conforming
request. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">We
look forward to the discussion of this document among
WG members.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Graeme
Bunton</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Steve
Metalitz</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">
Metalitz, Steven
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> PPSAI (<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Category F -- status report</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Dear
WG colleagues,
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As
you know, several PPSAI Working Group members,
including representatives of the IPC and privacy and
proxy service providers, have endeavored to develop a
collaborative proposal on the minimum standards for
disclosure (Category F). The group’s work is not meant
to obviate or displace the work of the larger group on
this issue – rather, it is meant to constructively
contribute to the discussion by producing one proposal
on this issue for the larger group’s consideration.
This is an update on this sub-group’s progress.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">But
first, a little background: At the face-to-face
meeting of the PPSAI Working Group in Los Angeles on
October 10, 2014, one important topic was minimum
standards for disclosure of contact information of
customers of privacy/proxy services who may or may not
be using their private domain name registrations to
carry out infringing or other abusive activities.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Prior
to the face-to-face meeting, IPC participants in the
Working Group circulated a proposal on this topic. A
responsive redline was circulated to the WG by Volker
Greimann. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Following
extensive discussion of these proposals and of the
topic in general at the face-to-face meeting, a
sub-group of WG participants have continued this
discussion. The sub-group includes participants from
the IPC and privacy/proxy service providers. Meeting
by teleconference and working over e-mail, the
sub-group has sought to develop a text that could be
jointly presented to the PPSAI Working Group as a
framework for further discussion on the issue of
standards for disclosure. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Some
progress has been made, and the sub-group is
continuing its efforts with the goal of producing a
document for presentation to the PPSAI Working Group
as soon after the Singapore ICANN meeting as
feasible. If such a document is completed, it is
hoped that it would be a constructive contribution to
eventual WG approval of a set of recommendations on
“Category F” for inclusion in the Draft Report of the
WG.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Unlike
the documents discussed by the full WG last October,
the framework under discussion does not purport to
establish a single general policy for when disclosure
of contact information in cases of alleged abusive
activities would be available. Instead, it seeks to
focus more narrowly on intellectual property
infringement complaints as one illustrative example of
minimum disclosure standards. The framework would
describe (1) a service provider process for intake of
requests; (2) general templates that requests would
have to meet in order to trigger service provider
action; and (3) principles governing service provider
action in response to a conforming request. While
considerable progress has been made in the first two
areas, a number of critical issues remain to be
resolved in the third area, and discussion has not
been concluded on any of the areas.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The
expressed common goal of the discussion group
participants is a framework that would give requestors
a higher degree of certainty and predictability as to
if, when and how they could obtain what level of
disclosure; that would preserve for service providers
a sufficient degree of flexibility and discretion in
acting upon requests for disclosure; and that would
include reasonable safeguards and procedures to
protect the legitimate interests of customers of
accredited proxy/privacy service providers. Of
course, balancing these interests is the difficult
task before our working group. As stated, participants
in the discussion group hope to be able to make a
constructive contribution to the WG’s efforts to do
so. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Graeme
Bunton</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Steve
Metalitz</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>