[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

Tue Oct 18 13:53:24 UTC 2016

+1 Brian

On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
BWinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com> wrote:

>Dear J. Scott and all:
>
>I would also support attempting to obtain additional input on the survey
>questions by re-circulating.  When the survey was first circulated I
>think there may have been some miscommunication or lack of clear
>communication as to when prospective survey respondents must submit
>responses before the survey closed. Given that there are still other open
>areas in connection with the PDDRP, I don't see any harm in giving an
>extended opportunity for additional input on this.
>
>With respect to the responses that have been collected to date, I agree
>that despite the relatively small sample size, this Working Group should
>not dismiss this input out of hand.  This threatens the credibility of
>our work.  We should spend the time to thoroughly review and analyze the
>input and discuss whether it makes sense to revisit preliminary
>conclusions regarding the PDDRP.  I am not suggesting we will ultimately
>change course in terms of the conclusions, but believe we should be
>deliberate in our approach.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Brian
>
>
>Brian J. Winterfeldt
>Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
>Mayer Brown LLP
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:22 AM
>To: George Kirikos
>Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
>Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
>Query to our group. If the majority feels the sample size is just too
>small, what should we do? Ask for additional input by recirculating the
>survey. Taking George's points and ignore the survey b/c the sample is too
>small? Do other have another alternative?
>
>
>J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>Domains & Marketing |
>Adobe
>345 Park Avenue
>San Jose, CA 95110
>408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell)
>jsevans at adobe.com
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7
>C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0
>9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40
>8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
>>J. Scott:
>>
>>Your first email asked for "Thoughts?" and "Discussion"? Then, after
>>receiving my thoughts and discussion on the survey, you attempted to
>>delegitimize those thoughts and discussion by saying what you said:
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.
>>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7
>>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131
>>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov
>>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>"I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you
>>want
>>to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it gave
>>us
>>a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction opposition
>>to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would
>>suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do
>>outreach."
>>
>>with the entire basis of that statement ("Just because...") based on a
>>false premise that I'm against changing the PDDRP. A false premise. I
>>simply pointed out simple truths, a total sample size of only 16, with
>>only 5 in favour of PDDRP changes. If those observations were so
>>"dangerous" that you "couldn't argue statistics", but instead sought
>>to attack the person making them, that says a lot about the strength
>>of your arguments.
>>
>>And then you made the reckless suggestion that folks should be
>>attempting to artificially affect the outcome of the PDP by "rallying"
>>people who "share your views".
>>
>>I don't have any "anti-IP animus" --- I've long been opposed to
>>cybersquatting! I've even assisted TM holders pursue cybersquatters. I
>>am against *over-reaching* by some TM holders and am in favour of
>>*balanced* policy that protects the interests of domain name
>>registrants, in accordance with established law.
>>
>>Stop trying to label people, and instead listen to the arguments and
>>facts they put forward.
>>
>>Here were the undeniable FACTS: 16 total response, 5 in favour of PDDRP
>>changes.
>>
>>In my view, as I said before, the sample size is too small, and there
>>were flaws in the survey where the numbers didn't add up properly.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>George Kirikos
>>416-588-0269
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.
>>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b
>>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq
>>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
>>wrote:
>>> George:
>>>
>>> I apologize if you feel attacked. That was not my intent. It was,
>>>however,
>>> my intent to point out that our group reached out to the community for
>>> feedback. We got that feedback and it gave us a directive. If we
>>>applied
>>> your same argument, I could say that the anti-IP sentiments of the NCUC
>>> have been championed for over 18 years by no more than 10 people who
>>>claim
>>> to represent all non-contracted, non-commercial parties. That said, and
>>> despite only seeing the same voices raise the same concerns time and
>>>time
>>> again, we have listened, debated, re-debated, and sought input. The
>>> issues/concerns of these parties are always on the table despite only
>>> being put there by a very small group of people. So, I think we should
>>> take into account the call for change in the PDDRP and take action.
>>>Others
>>> may disagree and our consensus may be that we should not take action.
>>>
>>> Finally, I follow your work in many working groups and, IMHO, you have
>>>a
>>> clear anti-IP animus and I do believe that flavors your positions. I
>>>may
>>> be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion and I can express it. It is
>>>not
>>> meant to insult you or demean your positions. It is meant to call a
>>>spade
>>> a spade. I am pro-IP and proud of it. I will advocate for trademark
>>>owners
>>> when not acting in my capacity of chair. As Chair, it is my duty to
>>>make
>>> sure ALL viewpoints are heard and considered, even those with which I
>>> strongly disagree.
>>>
>>> J. Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>>> Domains & Marketing |
>>> Adobe
>>> 345 Park Avenue
>>> San Jose, CA 95110
>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell)
>>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>> 
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01
>>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb
>>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe
>>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>>George
>>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>J. Scott:
>>>>
>>>>What are you talking about? I've already made it clear (during the
>>>>calls) that I'm in *favour* of improving the PDDRP! Perhaps you've not
>>>>been paying attention. For you to attack my earlier response on the
>>>>basis that the "input" is in "opposition to (my) personal position" is
>>>>ridiculous. I would have made the comments I made regardless of my own
>>>>position, for the clear and logical reasons I stated, which had
>>>>absolutely nothing to do with the actual answers to the survey but
>>>>instead were based on (1) total number of responses and (2) numbers
>>>>not adding up properly.
>>>>
>>>>Furthermore, to suggest that *anyone* in the group should "rally those
>>>>who share your views the next time" is entirely inappropriate, in my
>>>>opinion. It's suggesting that instead of this working group doing a
>>>>"scientific" survey, a *representative* sample of the population of
>>>>stakeholders, that folks should instead be engaged in electioneering
>>>>in order to artificially manipulate the outcome. For that suggestion
>>>>to come from one of the co-chairs of this working group is even more
>>>>disturbing.
>>>>
>>>>Lastly, I properly noted that there were a total of 5 people (out of
>>>>16 survey participants) believe that the PDDRP should change. That's
>>>>31.25%, a mathematical fact. You might label that an "overwhelming"
>>>>response and a "clear direction", but I disagree, for the reasons I
>>>>stated in my first email, and say so *despite* my own personal opinion
>>>>on the issue.
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>>George Kirikos
>>>>416-588-0269
>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lea
>>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416
>>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS
>>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> George:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you
>>>>>want
>>>>> to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it
>>>>>gave
>>>>>us
>>>>> a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction
>>>>>opposition
>>>>> to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would
>>>>> suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do
>>>>> outreach.
>>>>>
>>>>> J. Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>>>>> Domains & Marketing |
>>>>> Adobe
>>>>> 345 Park Avenue
>>>>> San Jose, CA 95110
>>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell)
>>>>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>>>> 
>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=
>>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759
>>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ
>>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>>>>George
>>>>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>1. The sample size appears to be 16 (from Q2), so the statistical
>>>>>>margin of error for such a small sample size is enormous. The total
>>>>>>number of respondents who "overwhelmingly" believe that the PDDRP
>>>>>>should change is 5 (answer to Q10), which is actually 31.25% of those
>>>>>>who participated in the survey (5 of 16).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. Many of the numbers don't add up. e.g.
>>>>>>(a) for Q4, there were 19 responses, despite the sample size being
>>>>>>16!
>>>>>>(b) for Q9, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have
>>>>>>been is 5 (given there were 5 "yes" responses in Q7).
>>>>>>(c) for Q10, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have
>>>>>>been is 5 (given there were 5 "no" responses in Q9).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There were only 9 visible answers (i.e. there was no Q1 shown in the
>>>>>>document), so it's disturbing that one-third of the survey results
>>>>>>don't add up properly. I'm not sure what software was used to display
>>>>>>the survey, but tools like SurveyMonkey, etc. usually allow
>>>>>>"conditional branching" or "skip logic" to only show some questions
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>people who answer a prior question in a certain manner, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
>>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9
>>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for"
>>>>>>something or "against" something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>George Kirikos
>>>>>>416-588-0269
>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l
>>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc
>>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW
>>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow. The respondents seem to really believe (overwhelmingly so)
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>need
>>>>>>> to amend the PDDRP to make is useable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts? Discussion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>>>>>>>Domains
>>>>>>> & Marketing |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 345 Park Avenue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> San Jose, CA 95110
>>>>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell)
>>>>>>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&dat
>>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3
>>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452
>>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of David Tait
>>>>>>> <david.tait at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM
>>>>>>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and
>>>>>>>Survey
>>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further to my previous email I attach a further revised version of
>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>> document which (following a request from the co-chairs) now
>>>>>>>contains
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>> graphs once again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David Tait <david.tait at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08
>>>>>>> To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and
>>>>>>>Survey
>>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further to your previous email I am pleased to attach a
>>>>>>>consolidated
>>>>>>>version
>>>>>>> of the responses received.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
>>>>>>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and
>>>>>>>Survey
>>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Mary for this.  Is there a way to combine all of the written
>>>>>>> responses in the summary document as well especially to questions
>>>>>>>6,
>>>>>>>7,
>>>>>>>8,
>>>>>>> 10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T: +1.703.635.7514
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M: +1.202.549.5079
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Jintlaw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
>>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will recall that the Working Group had agreed to resume
>>>>>>>deliberations
>>>>>>> over the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure
>>>>>>>(TM-PDDRP)
>>>>>>> after receipt of responses from the TM-PDDRP providers and closure
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>> Community Survey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We received responses from two providers  FORUM and WIPO, for
>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>> thank Brian Beckham, Ty Gray, Daniel Legerski and their colleagues.
>>>>>>>We
>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>> collected sixteen community member responses to the TM-PDDRP
>>>>>>>Community
>>>>>>> Survey, including from registrars and intellectual property
>>>>>>>rights-holders.
>>>>>>> All the responses, as well as an aggregated data report on the
>>>>>>>Community
>>>>>>> Survey, have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space
>>>>>>>here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcom
>>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB
>>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09
>>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM
>>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Working Group co-chairs have asked that Working Group members
>>>>>>>review
>>>>>>> these responses in time for our next call on 19 October 2016,
>>>>>>>where,
>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>time
>>>>>>> permits, we will start discussing them. At the moment, we
>>>>>>>anticipate
>>>>>>>that a
>>>>>>> fuller review, including community participation, will be the focus
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>> Working Group¹s open meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. This will
>>>>>>>allow
>>>>>>>us to
>>>>>>> complete this initial review of the TM-PDDRP shortly thereafter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI the tentative date and time of the open Working Group meeting
>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>ICANN57
>>>>>>> is currently Monday 7 November (Day 5 of the meeting), from
>>>>>>>11.00-12.30
>>>>>>> local Hyderabad time. As with all these sessions, remote
>>>>>>>participation
>>>>>>> facilities will be made available for those who will not be present
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>> Hyderabad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ACL>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.
>>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf
>>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b
>>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9
>>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.i
>>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2
>>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ica
>>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4
>>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d
>>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%
>>>>3D&reserved=0
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.
>org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer
>brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e
>51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=
>0
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
>use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
>received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are
>not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
>this e-mail.
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg