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

[Greg Shatan]

The way the survey was constructed, only those who answered "yes" to Q7
(has there been any bad conduct) *and* "no" to Q9 (does the TM-PDDRP work)
were supposed to answer Q10 (should the PDDRP be amended?).  Only 5
respondents "qualified" to answer Q10.  Of those 5, 4 answered "yes" (the
TM-PDDRP should be amended).

As a result, we don't know what those who answered "no" to Q7 think about
the problem. It's wrong to say "only 5 of the 16 respondents recommended
any changes to the TM-PDDRP" because only 5 of the respondents were
*asked* whether
the TM-PDDRP should be changed.

If the survey results support anything, they support change to the PDDRP --
since 80% of those asked the question answered YES.  But it would be nice
to know what those who answered "no" to question 7 thought.

Greg

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> I agree Brian, thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian F. Cimbolic
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:25 AM
>
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
>
>
> All – apologies for the late response on this, but I ran into an issue
> where my email wasn’t hitting the list.  I tried sending this yesterday –
> trying again now.
>
>
>
> I agree with Kathy and found reading the actual responses helpful.  As
> Kathy points out, only 5 of the 16 respondents recommended any changes to
> the TM-PDDRP and 11 of the 16 (nearly 70%) answered the threshold question
> (“has there been any conduct by new gTLD registry operators that you
> believe constitutes a ‘substantial pattern or practice of specific bad
> faith intent to profit …”) by responding “No.”
>
>
>
> I agree with J. Scott that the responses are, therefore, overwhelming, but
> respectfully believe they support the opposite conclusion: that no change
> is necessary to the TM-PDDRP.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *Brian Cimbolic*
>
> Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry
>
> Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871|
>
> www.pir.org | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram
> <http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube
> <http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Note:*  Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest
> Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:59 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
>
>
> 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> <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 <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>
> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Paul
> Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of 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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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>:
>
> 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 <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
>
> 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 <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
>
> 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
>
> www.adobe.com [2]
>
> 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:
>
> 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>
>
> 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
>
> www.adobe.com [2]
>
> 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
>
> http://www.leap.com/
>
> 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
>
> www.adobe.com [2]
>
> 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://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>
>
> 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
>
> www.adobe.com [2]
>
> 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 <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://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
>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
> ________________________________
>
> <ACL>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> 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/20161019/8ec64192/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3010 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161019/8ec64192/image002-0001.jpg>