[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Wed Oct 19 13:59:28 UTC 2016
I think as we evaluate resending the survey, we should also reflect that
our time on the TM-PDDRP is largely past. Our work plan has us moving on
to 6 months of TMCH and many more months (maybe years) of URS and UDRP.
If the goal was to see if there was anything missing in our analysis of
the TM-PDDRP, there was a wide array of community members who did
respond - small as it may be.
I am always in favor of educational efforts, but that sounds like a
recommendation to me.
Best, Kathy
On 10/19/2016 9:51 AM, Petter Rindforth wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Good point.
>
> Perhaps we can rephrase the questioins so that those that replies but
> have never heard about the system just have to click that box and then
> - if they want - as the next and (for them) final step are free to
> make a comment.
> I still think that we such way can get some useful inputs like "Ohhh,
> never heard about it, but it may well be useful of you just
> cangem/add, etc..."
>
> Best,
> Petter
>
> --
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>
> Fenix Legal KB
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 114 35 Stockholm
> Sweden
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> www.fenixlegal.eu
>
>
> NOTICE
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or
> individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential
> attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information
> it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
> Thank you
>
> 19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy
> <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>:
>>
>> As to Petter’s point, I see the lack of knowledge of the PDDRP as a
>> valuable statistic (i.e, understanding the scope so that perhaps
>> further outreach and education efforts can be planned). However, I’m
>> wondering what value we’re expecting from asking those who’ve never
>> heard of the Policy to comment upon it or answer any other questions
>> in the survey. How can one provide any reliable or helpful comments
>> or question responses on a topic of which they have no knowledge?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>>
>> *Accent Law Group, Inc.*
>> 301 Fulton St.
>> Philadelphia, PA 19147
>>
>> United States
>>
>> Phone: +1-215-327-9094
>> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <mailto:slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>>
>> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>>
>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating"
>> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>> on behalf of paul at law.es <mailto:paul at law.es>> wrote:
>>
>> When we send it out the email should explain that we need responses.
>>
>> Regarding use of the sample yes I agree all information is good.
>> However we really cannot rely upon it for statistical purposes
>> and should note that in our report.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Paul Keating, Esq.
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 1:52 PM, gtheo <gtheo at xs4all.nl
>> <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, if the sample size is too small, we should send it again.
>>
>> As mentioned before, usually the response rate is rather low
>> when it comes to these survey's, this has never stopped us to
>> take the results into account in previous exercises.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Theo Geurts | Compliance & Policy Officer
>>
>> Realtime Register B.V.
>>
>> Ceintuurbaan 32A
>> 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands
>>
>> T: +31.384530759
>> F: +31.384524734
>> U: www.realtimeregister.com
>> E: legal at realtimeregister.com <mailto:legal at realtimeregister.com>
>>
>>
>> Petter Rindforth schreef op 2016-10-19 09:57 AM:
>>
>> Agree.
>> Let's try to send it out again, and maybe this time
>> especially add
>> that we appreciate to get comments even if the TM-PDDRP
>> has never been
>> considered or is totally unknown.
>> I sent a reminder to a couple of IP attorney groups, and
>> got a
>> response back from a number of members that they had
>> never heard about
>> the TM-PDDRP and therefore saw no reason to reply to the
>> Survey.
>> Best,
>> Petter
>> --
>> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>> Fenix Legal KB
>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
>> 114 35 Stockholm
>> Sweden
>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
>> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
>> <mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
>> www.fenixlegal.eu
>> NOTICE
>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or
>> individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain
>> confidential
>> attorney-client privileged information and attorney work
>> product. If
>> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
>> you are
>> requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of
>> the information
>> it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us
>> by return
>> e-mail.
>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
>> Thank you
>> 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M.
>> <christhomas at parkerpoe.com
>> <mailto:christhomas at parkerpoe.com>>:
>>
>> I agree with Renee. And if we do not get a
>> significant response, I
>> think we need to make a determination on the data
>> that we have.
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________
>> Christopher Thomas
>> Partner
>> Parker Poe
>> PNC Plaza | 301 Fayetteville Street | Suite 1400 |
>> Raleigh, NC 27601
>> Office: 919.835.4641 | Fax: 919.834.4564
>> Visit our website at
>> www.parkerpoe.com [1]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Reuter, Renee M
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:24 AM
>> To: J. Scott Evans; George Kirikos
>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION:
>> Provider and
>> Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
>> I think it would be unfair to those who took the time
>> to send in
>> responses for us to ignore the survey results. I
>> would be in favor
>> of recirculating the survey.
>> Renee
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto: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 8:22 AM
>> To: George Kirikos
>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>> www.adobe.com [2]
>> On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos"
>> <icann at leap.com <mailto: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:
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-October/000685.html
>> "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
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans
>> <jsevans at adobe.com <mailto: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 <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>> www.adobe.com [2]
>> On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> icann at leap.com <mailto: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
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans
>> <jsevans at adobe.com <mailto: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 <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>> www.adobe.com [2]
>> On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> icann at leap.com <mailto: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://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/tour/skiplogic/
>> Given the above, I'd place little weight on the
>> results, either
>> "for"
>> something or "against" something.
>> Sincerely,
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans
>> <jsevans at adobe.com <mailto: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 <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>> www.adobe.com [2]
>> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
>> David Tait
>> <david.tait at icann.org <mailto:david.tait at icann.org>>
>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM
>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>"
>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto:david.tait at icann.org>>
>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08
>> To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09
>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
>> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>"
>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or
>> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>> <mailto: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>
>> [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 <mailto: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://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw[community.icann.org].
>> 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 <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>> ________________________________
>> <ACL>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> ________________________________
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files
>> transmitted with it
>> are intended solely for the use of the individual or
>> entity to whom
>> they are addressed and may contain confidential and
>> privileged
>> information protected by law. If you received this e-mail
>> in error,
>> any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying
>> of the e-mail
>> is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
>> immediately by return
>> e-mail and delete all copies from your system.
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any
>> attachments are confidential property of the sender. The
>> information
>> is intended only or the use of the person to whom it was
>> addressed.
>> Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure
>> of this
>> message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility
>> for any
>> unauthorized reliance on this message. If you have
>> received this
>> message in error, please immediately notify the sender
>> and purge the
>> message you received. Do not forward this message without
>> permission.
>> [ppab_p&c]
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com
>> [2] http://www.adobe.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161019/59b9b811/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 17001 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161019/59b9b811/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list