<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Kathy and Rebecca,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On behalf of Martin and Roger, the Sub Team Co-Chairs, we thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on this discussion thread. We encourage the whole Sub Team to continue discussion of the open threads
(Q2, Q4 and Q5). The plan is to discuss respective thread comments the next meeting after a Discussion Thread is closed </span><span style="color:black">(i.e. Q4 at the May 29<sup>th</sup> meeting (to start the discussion) but with the thread closing on 29
May (extended)), </span><span style="color:black">and Q2/Q5 at the June 5<sup>th</sup> meeting after those threads close on 29 May). Once the Sub Team has discussed all thread input/comments during this subsequent meeting, the respective proposed answers to
charter questions and preliminary recommendations will be updated based on the Sub Team discussion and sent to the Sub Team for review. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As mentioned in the emails and during meetings, staff formulated the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations based on the transcripts and chats for the meetings during which the Sub Team discussed the
agreed charter questions and related individual proposals. To the extent that there may be gaps, we are grateful if someone</span><span style="color:red"> </span><span style="color:black">could point us to where in the meeting transcripts and chat records
there are discussions that we may have missed, or mischaracterized.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thank you very much for your feedback and assistance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Mary, Ariel, and Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:20 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Hi All, I'm not sure why this is typing in yellow highlight, but so be it. I think we had a good discussion on TM#2 and arrived at some sound recommendations. Some edits
below, largely from Rebecca, further incorporate the nuances of our discussion into the proposed answers and draft recommendation.</span></b>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Best, Kathy (individual capacity)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">p.s. hopefully edits in green visible below</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">----------------------------------------------------------</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Agreed Trademark Claims Question 2</span><span style="color:black"> (Pages 6-7)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>[<i>(a) and (b) unchanged]</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="color:black">(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><s><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer:
</span></u></s></b><s><span style="color:black">The Claims Period should be mandatory and be consistently applied to all TLDs. However, registries should have certain degree of flexibility to create a suitable business model in carrying out the Claims Period.</span></s><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u><span style="color:#33CC00">Proposed Answer:
</span></u><span style="color:#33CC00">Where there is a Claims Period (see Q2(d)), it should not be shortened.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so, which ones and why?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><s><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer:
</span></u></s></b><s><span style="color:black">Some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.</span></s><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u><span style="color:#009900">Proposed Answer:
</span></u><span style="color:#009900">Some members of the Subteam believed that .brand gTLDs had no need for a Claims period, because there will be no individual registrants in a .brand. Some members suggested that certain highly regulated new gTLDs, on the
order of .bank, might not need a Claims period because of the other requirements of registration, while another member argued that a Claims period would still be appropriate and not harmful. Other members suggested there may various use cases for exempting
a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of the TLD, such as a restricted gTLD that would bar commercial use due to its terms of use or acceptable use policy.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><u><span style="color:#009900">Draft Recommendation:</span></u><span style="color:#009900"> The TM Claims Subteam recommends, in general, that the current requirement for a mandatory
Claims Period be maintained, including for the minimum initial 90-day period when a gTLD opens for registration. In addition, the TM Claims Subteam recommends that public comment be sought on whether there is a use case for exempting a gTLD that is approved
in subsequent expansion rounds from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of that gTLD. Such type of gTLD might include: (i) restricted TLDs that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use or acceptable use policy;
(ii) “highly regulated” TLDs that have stringent requirements for registering entities, on the order of .bank; and/or (iii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model demonstrates that the use of a Claims Service is unnecessary. [moved up from (e)
below and slightly edited for clarity]</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><s>Potential Question for Public Comment: Is there a use case for exempting a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of the TLD?</s>
[incorporated above]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer:
</span></u></b>The Sub Team agreed that this is an issue for the full Working Group when discussing the TMCH. The Sub Team also needs to review George Kirkios’s individual proposal (#2?) regarding extending the proof of use requirements for Sunrise to include
the issuance of TMCH notices.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="color:#009900">[Recommendation below appears to be for (d), now included above. Do we have a draft recommendation for (e)?]</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u><span style="color:black">Draft Recommendation:</span></u></b><span style="color:black"> In general, the Sub Team recommends that the current requirement for a mandatory Claims
Period be maintained, including for the minimum initial 90-day period when a TLD opens for general registration. In addition, the Sub Team recommends that public comment be sought on whether there is a use case for exempting a TLD from the requirement of a
mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of the TLD. Such type of TLD might include: (i) restricted TLDs that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use or acceptable use policy; and (ii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model
demonstrates that the use of a Claims service is unnecessary. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Individual Proposals</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Please reference the following pages in the Summary Table for the draft answers to the three questions regarding the individual proposals. Links to the individual proposals are also included
below. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#1 (Pages 7-8): </b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2</a><b>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#12 (Pages 8-9): </b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 5/17/2019 1:19 PM, Ariel Liang wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination, the<span style="color:black"> closing date of the Discussion Thread for the Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 2 has been extended. It will remain open until
<b>23:59 UTC on 29 May</b>. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The extension is granted due to its overlap with the Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 5. The Discussion Thread for TM Claims Q5 will also remain open until 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">You may wish to reference the latest version<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Summary Table (as of 17 May 2019), pages 8-13</b>, for your review/input:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Mary, Julie, Ariel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Ariel Liang
<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org"><ariel.liang@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">"gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to
<b>Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 2</b>, including <b>Individual Proposals #1 and #12</b>.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">We ask that you review the
<b>Summary Table</b> <b>(as of 16 April 2019) </b>and provide any additional input you may have to the “<b>tentative answers & preliminary recommendations</b>” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and
<b>draft answers </b>to the following questions regarding the individual proposals:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="color:black">a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="color:black">b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="color:black">c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the Agreed Charter Question?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until
<b>23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019</b>. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow">Summary Table
</span><span style="color:black">(Pages 6-12)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;caret-color: rgb(0,
0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans:
auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust:
auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2</a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color:black">
</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Agreed Trademark Claims Question 2</span><span style="color:black"> (Pages 6-7)</span></b><span style="color:black"><br>
If the answers to the agreed Claims question 1(a) is “no” or 1(b) is “yes”, or if it could be better: What about the Trademark Claims Notice and/or the Notice of Registered Name should be adjusted, added or eliminated in order for it to have its intended effect,
under each of the following questions?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(a) Should the Claims period be extended - if so, for how long (up to permanently)?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">Registries should have the option to extend the Claims Period. The Sub Team noted, however, that there is data indicating an extension will not be
advisable as a matter of policy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(b) Should the Claims period be shortened?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">The Claims Period should not be shortened.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">The Claims Period should be mandatory and be consistently applied to all TLDs. However, registries should have certain degree of flexibility to create
a suitable business model in carrying out the Claims Period.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so, which ones and why?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">Some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Potential Question for Public Comment</u></b>: Is there a use case for exempting a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of the TLD?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer: </span></u></b>The Sub Team agreed that this is an issue for the full Working Group when discussing the TMCH. The Sub Team also needs to review George Kirkios’s individual proposal (#2?)
regarding extending the proof of use requirements for Sunrise to include the issuance of TMCH notices.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Draft Recommendation:</span></u></b><span style="color:black"> In general, the Sub Team recommends that the current requirement for a mandatory Claims Period be maintained, including for the minimum initial
90-day period when a TLD opens for general registration. In addition, the Sub Team recommends that public comment be sought on whether there is a use case for exempting a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of
the TLD. Such type of TLD might include: (i) restricted TLDs that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use or acceptable use policy; and (ii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model demonstrates that the use of a Claims service is unnecessary.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Individual Proposals</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Please reference the following pages in the Summary Table for the draft answers to the three questions regarding the individual proposals. Links to the individual proposals are also included
below. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#1 (Pages 7-8): </b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2</a><b>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#12 (Pages 8-9): </b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Best Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Mary, Julie, Ariel
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>