[gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)

Wed Apr 26 13:44:53 UTC 2017

Citation needed.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759


On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:38 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
> Rebecca:
>
> You are simply wrong on the law.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 6:37 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>
>> How does stylization translate into the DNS?  We know that stylized
>> PARENTS and OWN YOUR POWER, to take two examples already discussed,
>> provide no trademark rights in the words "parents" and "own your
>> power."  Accepting stylized versions, as Deloitte currently does, thus
>> gives TMCH protection to words as to which there is no underlying
>> trademark protection.  "Text" is not an invention by ICANN.
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>> Georgetown Law
>> 703 593 6759
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>>> +1 Brian B. and J. Scott.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The T Markey (stylized) example Kathy gave proves the point I am trying to
>>> make.  There is nothing about that mark which would not translate into the
>>> DNS or would limit analysis of it by a trademark office on absolute grounds.
>>> So long as we continue to mash up Stylized marks with other design and
>>> composite marks, we simply don’t have a functional vocabulary to have this
>>> conversation.  In other words, we have to use well established trademark
>>> vocabulary to talk about trademarks.  We can’t invent our own language and
>>> then evaluate the TMCH rules through the new language rather than the
>>> language it was written in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans at adobe.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:41 AM
>>> To: Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>; icannlists
>>> <icannlists at winston.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design
>>> Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have several problems with this proposal too. Kathy's conclusory statement
>>> about how he breadth of protection afforded by a composite or stylized mark
>>> is incorrect. Second, and more importantly, I am bothered by all the
>>> hyperbole and accusatory language like "breach", etc. this language is
>>> emotional and charged with negativity. I think it is inappropriate and not
>>> productive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> J. Scott
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:10 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kathy,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s not clear that the reference to “only marks registered as text” is
>>> necessarily incompatible with the “T. MARKEY” examples provided.  The
>>> second, stylized version shows a “mark registered as text”.  It simply
>>> happens to be text in a stylized (non-standard) form.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, a mark “registered as text” may not necessarily be
>>> exclusively the same as (in USPTO parlance) “a standard character mark”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It may therefore not be entirely accurate to suggest that if the TMCH
>>> allowed the second “T. MARKEY” example in stylized form (again, arguably a
>>> mark “registered as text”) versus the standard character version, it would
>>> somehow be “expand[ing] existing trademark rights”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:12 AM
>>> To: icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design
>>> Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> Apologies. I saw your thanks, but not your notes farther down. (For those of
>>> us skimming hundreds of emails, feel free to use use
>>> red/green/stars/asterisks to designate comments...) I caught it on a
>>> re-read...
>>>
>>> Quick note that the purpose of this recommendation is to share what is
>>> clearly before the Working Group: that rules created for the Trademark
>>> Clearinghouse process are not being followed. The goal is not to delve into
>>> motive or intent, but rather compliance and review. The actions of our TMCH
>>> database provider, as an ICANN contractor, must follow and comply with the
>>> rules as set out by the ICANN Community.
>>>
>>> If we want to change the rules, that's fine; we can do it by consensus. But
>>> until that happens, the rules adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council and
>>> ICANN Board are the policy. It's not for third parties to make their own or
>>> follow a different set.
>>>
>>> Paul, I'll respond to what I think are your questions below. My answers are
>>> preceded by =>
>>> Best, Kathy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2017 8:23 PM, icannlists wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you so much for being willing to put forward a proposal.  I know this
>>> is hard work (having put forward one on the GIs myself this week!) so it is
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am getting my initial thoughts on this out to the list on this as quickly
>>> as possible in the hopes that your proposal can be reworked a bit prior to
>>> our next WG call.  A few thoughts:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.      We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
>>> marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed marks, and
>>> any similar combination of characters and design (collectively “design
>>> marks”).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We spent the better half of our last call untangling these definitions and
>>> to see them lumped in together again when these are not the same things
>>> makes the proposal impossible to read for we trademark folks.  It would be
>>> great if we could include the clarity we achieved last week.
>>>
>>> ==> The category is meant to be comprehensive and international.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.      However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
>>> expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just inaccurate as written, mostly, but not entirely, by the way you
>>> have defined the terms.  For example, I know of no GNSO Council prohibition
>>> that would reject a mark just because it is in a cursive font instead of
>>> plain block font.  Can you either fix this or send us to a link supporting
>>> the claim?  Perhaps if you unpack your collective definition, resulting a
>>> more precise claim and provide the link, that might give us something to
>>> talk about.  As written now, I’ve just come to a halt on it because it
>>> doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground.
>>>
>>> ==> Paul, what I wrote is nearly a direct quote. Please see the "Expanded
>>> Discussion" discussion which follows in my recommendation directly below the
>>> opening section and explains exactly where this sentence comes from and what
>>> it references. I'm happy to paste some of this discussion here too. The STI
>>> Final Report (adopted by GNSO Council and ICANN Board) stated:
>>>
>>> “The TC Database should be required to include nationally or multinationally
>>> registered “text mark” trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including
>>> countries where there is no substantive review). (The trademarks to be
>>> included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection
>>> for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and
>>> the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.)
>>> Emphasis added. Section 4.1, National or Multinational Registered Marks,
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fissues%2Fsti%2Fsti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636288106505848556&sdata=hiv9%2Fm8w018T3t1y%2FbUYhcAiim2riM%2BPNuF15BkTY%2F0%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==> The words mean exactly what they say - only marks registered as text can
>>> be registered into the Trademark Clearinghouse;  nothing that "provide[s]
>>> protection for letters and words only within the content of their design or
>>> logo." It states why: "the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing
>>> trademark rights." The issue was the balancing of underlying concept adopted
>>> here as part of the rights of trademark owners and the rights of current and
>>> future registrants. Domain names are text based.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==> We certainly meant to differentiate a trademark in a "cursive font
>>> instead of a plain text font." That's the whole purpose for Section 4.1's
>>> text, and the unusual extra step of including the explanation right next to
>>> it. Those of us who worked on this section (including myself and Dr.
>>> Konstantinos Komaitis, whose PhD became the book The Current State of Domain
>>> Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated
>>> World) spent a lot of time on this issue. In evaluating it, the STI Final
>>> Report followed the guidance of experts such as those at the US Trademark
>>> Office regarding the different representation of marks:
>>>
>>> [USPTO Representation of Mark]  "During the application process for a
>>> standard character mark, the USPTO will depict the mark in a simple
>>> standardized typeface format.  However, it is important to remember that
>>> this depiction does not limit or control the format in which you actually
>>> "use" the mark.  In other words, the rights associated with a mark in
>>> standard characters reside in the wording (or other literal element, e.g.,
>>> letters, numerals, punctuation) and not in any particular display.
>>> Therefore, registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to
>>> use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color.  It is for this
>>> reason that a standard character mark can be an attractive option for many
>>> companies."
>>>
>>> "The stylized/design format, on the other hand, is appropriate if you wish
>>> to register word(s) by themselves or combined to form a phrase of any length
>>> and/or letter(s) having a particular stylized appearance, a mark consisting
>>> of a design element, or a combination of stylized wording and a design. Once
>>> filed, any design element will be assigned a “design code,” as set forth in
>>> the Design Search Code Manual."
>>>
>>> "Here is an example of a standard character mark:
>>>
>>> <image001.jpg>"
>>>
>>> "Here are some examples of special form marks:
>>>
>>> <image002.jpg>  <image003.jpg>
>>>
>>>                                                  <image004.jpg>"
>>>
>>> Quotes above from
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Ftrademarks-getting-started%2Ftrademark-basics%2Frepresentation-mark&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505848556&sdata=71xhrgyiegxP1VDZdQa0adJW2eu5zd6KP6QTmKAi8d8%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> The rest of the recommendation follows from these finding. Again, this not a
>>> matter of a good job or a bad job -- no value judgement is intended. Rather
>>> it is a compliance and review issue. Are the rules followed?  The answer is
>>> no.
>>>
>>> Best, Kathy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.      Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
>>> adopted and must revise its practice to follow the ruls adopted by the GNSO
>>> Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to buy this conclusion, the premises have to be correct, but the
>>> premises (as mentioned in 1 and 2) are not close to ready.  I have to
>>> suspend consideration of the conclusion contained in this paragraph due to
>>> the faulty syllogism we have in front of us.  Maybe if you make the edits in
>>> 1 and 2 suggested, we can then examine whether or not your paragraph 3
>>> conclusion is correct, partially correct, or incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.      Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules
>>> and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of rules
>>> that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow.
>>>
>>> I guess I don’t understand this.  Are you saying that if Deloitte is not in
>>> breach by letting in marks written in cursive fonts, then the WG can by
>>> Consensus propose changes?  I’m not sure that the two things are connected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.      In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied.
>>> Further details, information and explanation below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Same response as #3 above.  Also, this really confused paragraph 4 for me
>>> further.  It seemed like paragraph 4 indicated that if paragraph 3 were not
>>> accurate, consensus driven solutions would be possible (again not sure those
>>> two things are connected) but then you go on to say in 5 that conclusions in
>>> 3 are a foregone conclusion (thus obviating any perceivable need for
>>> paragraph 4).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m sure other thoughts will come to me as we dig in to either this version
>>> or an amended version, but these were the issues that jumped out at me right
>>> away.  If you could respond to the full list on this as soon as practical, I
>>> would appreciate it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:18 PM
>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark
>>> and Appropriate Balance)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> As promised, I am resubmitting a new version of my earlier recommendation.
>>> It now addresses issues from Question #7 (Design Marks) and #16 (Appropriate
>>> Balance). I submit this recommendation to the Working Group in my capacity
>>> as a member and not as a co-chair.
>>>
>>> Text below and also attached as a PDF.
>>>
>>> Best, Kathy
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Design Mark Recommendation for Working Group - for Question #7 and Question
>>> #16 of TMCH Charter Questions (#7, How are design marks currently handled by
>>> the TMCH provider?; and #16, Does the scope of the TMCH and the protections
>>> mechanisms which flow from it reflect the appropriate balance between the
>>> rights of trademark holders and the rights of non-trademark registrants?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We (the RPM Working Group) have found a problem:
>>>
>>> 1.      We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
>>> marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed marks, and
>>> any similar combination of characters and design (collectively “design
>>> marks”).
>>>
>>> 2.      However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
>>> expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database.
>>>
>>> 3.      Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
>>> adopted and must revise its practice to follow the rules adopted by the GNSO
>>> Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation.
>>>
>>> 4.      Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules
>>> and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of rules
>>> that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow.
>>>
>>> 5.      In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied.
>>> Further details, information and explanation below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Expanded Discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Expressly Outside the TMCH Rules Adopted by the GNSO Council & ICANN
>>> Board
>>>
>>> The GNSO Council & ICANN Board-adopted rules (based on the STI Final Report
>>> and IRT Recommendations) that were very clear about the type of mark to be
>>> accepted by the Trademark Clearinghouse:
>>>
>>> “4.1 National or Multinational Registered Marks The TC Database should be
>>> required to include nationally or multinationally registered “text mark”
>>> trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no
>>> substantive review).”
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fissues%2Fsti%2Fsti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636288106505848556&sdata=hiv9%2Fm8w018T3t1y%2FbUYhcAiim2riM%2BPNuF15BkTY%2F0%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Further, the adopted rules themselves are very clear about the Harm of
>>> putting design marks into the TMCH Database:
>>>
>>> “[Also 4.1] (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because
>>> “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the
>>> context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to
>>> expand existing trademark rights.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Applicant Guidebook adopted the same requirements, as it must and
>>> should, namely:
>>>
>>> “3.2:Standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse
>>>
>>> 3.2.1        Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all
>>> jurisdictions”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonetheless, and in violation of the express rules adopted by the GNSO
>>> Council and ICANN Board and placed into the Applicant Guidebook, TMCH
>>> Provider Deloitte is accepting into the TMCH database words and letters it
>>> has extracted from composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks,
>>> composite marks and mixed marks. Deloitte is removing words and letters from
>>> designs, patterns, special lettering and other patterns, styles, colors, and
>>> logos which were integral to the trademark as accepted by the national or
>>> regional trademark office.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B. Harm from the Current Form
>>>
>>> The harm from this acceptance is that it violates the rules under which
>>> Deloitte is allowed to operate. It creates a situation in which Deloitte is
>>> operating under its own authority, not that of ICANN and the ICANN
>>> Community. Such action, in violation of rules clearly adopted by the GNSO
>>> Council and ICANN Board and written into the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook,
>>> gives too much power to Deloitte -- a contractor of ICANN, to make its own
>>> rules and adopt its own protocol without regard to the scope, breadth and
>>> reach of the governing rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is the type of misconduct anticipated by the GNSO Council and ICANN
>>> Board, and why the rules demand that ICANN hold a close relationship with
>>> the TMCH Provider by contract to allow close oversight and correction of
>>> misinterpretation or failure to follow the rules. (See, 3.1 in Relationship
>>> with ICANN, Special Trademark Issues Review Team Recommendations).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C. Presumption of Trademark Validity Does Not Extend to Non-Stylized Version
>>> of the Registration Marks
>>>
>>> Further, words and letters within a composite marks, figurative marks,
>>> stylized marks, and mixed marks are protected within the scope of the
>>> designs, logos, lettering, patterns, colors, etc. That's not a Working Group
>>> opinion, that's a legal opinion echoed through case law and UDRP decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In WIPO UDRP Decision Marco Rafael Sanfilippo v. Estudio Indigo, Case No.
>>> D2012-1064, the Panel found:
>>>
>>> “Complainant has shown that it owns two trademark registrations in
>>> Argentina. The Panel notes that both registrations are for “mixed” marks,
>>> where each consists of a composition made of words and graphic elements,
>>> such as stylized fonts, a roof of a house, etc. See details of the
>>> registrations with drawings at section 4 above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “As explained on the INPI website, “[m] ixed (marks) are those constituted
>>> by the combination of word elements and figurative elements together, or of
>>> word elements in stylized manner.” Accordingly, the protection granted by
>>> the registration of a mixed mark is for the composition as a whole, and not
>>> for any of its constituting elements in particular. Thus, Complainant is not
>>> correct when he asserts that it has trademark rights in the term “cabañas”
>>> (standing alone), based on these mixed trademark registrations.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Similarly, in the US, federal courts have found that the presumption of
>>> trademark validity provided by registration does not extend to the
>>> non-stylized versions of the registration marks. See e.g.,
>>>
>>> Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill.
>>> 2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized
>>> uses); Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing
>>> with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent stylization),
>>> aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d.
>>>
>>> Cir. 2016).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D. Beyond the Scope of the TMCH Protection that the GNSO Council and ICANN
>>> Board Agreed to Provide Trademark Owners.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out in our Working Group calls, the STI evaluations and
>>> IRT evaluations were long and hard and both groups decided in their
>>> recommendations to protect only the word mark – the text itself when the
>>> text was registered by itself. Neither allowed for the extraction of a word
>>> or letters from amidst a pattern, style, composite or mixed marks; neither
>>> created a process for doing so; neither accorded the discretion to the TMCH
>>> Provider (now Deloitte) to adopt any processes to handle this process
>>> independently.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The STI clearly elaborated its reasoning: that extracting a word or letters
>>> from a larger design, gives too many rights to one trademark owner over
>>> others using the same words or letters. As clearly elaborated in the STI
>>> Recommendations and adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
>>> (unanimously), it would be an unfair advantage for one trademark owner over
>>> others using the same words or letters. Specifically:
>>>
>>> “(The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design
>>> marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of
>>> their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing
>>> trademark rights.)”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To the extent that Deloitte as a TMCH Provider is operating within its
>>> mandate, and the limits of the rules and contract imposed on it, it may not
>>> take steps to expand existing trademark rights. The rights, as granted by
>>> national and regional trademark offices are rights that expressly include
>>> the patterns, special lettering and other styles, colors, and logos that are
>>> a part of the trademark granted by the Trademark Office and certification
>>> provided by each Trademark Office and presented to the Trademark
>>> Clearinghouse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> II.                Breach and Correction
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Accordingly, Deloitte is in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted and must
>>> revise its practice to go to follow the rules adopted by the GNSO Council
>>> and ICANN Board. Deloitte’s extraction of words and letters from patterns,
>>> special lettering, styles, colors and logos, as outlined above, violates the
>>> rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for the Trademark
>>> Clearinghouse operation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bringing Deloitte’s operation of the TMCH – and its terms and requirements -
>>> rules does not require a consensus of the Working Group. Rather, it is a
>>> fundamental aspect of our job as a Working Group, as laid out by the GNSO
>>> Council in our charter, to review the operation of the Trademark
>>> Clearinghouse in compliance with its rules. As Deloitte is not operating in
>>> compliance with its rules in this area, it is in breach and must come into
>>> compliance. The excellent work of the Working Group in this area, and
>>> finding this problem through hard work and research, should be sufficient
>>> for ICANN Staff to act in enforcement of its contract and our rules. Point
>>> it out clearly and directly to Deloitte, to ICANN Board and Staff, and to
>>> the ICANN Community is one small additional step the Working Group might
>>> take.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively, the Working Group by consensus may CHANGE the rules and
>>> present to the GNSO Council and ICANN Board a new set of standards by which
>>> Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may use to accept the design and
>>> stylized marks currently barred by the rules. But such a step would require
>>> a change to the ICANN rules under which the Trademark Clearinghouse operate,
>>> and then acceptance by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. ICANN contractors
>>> do not have the unilateral power to make their own rules or to change the
>>> rule that are given them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
>>> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
>>> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
>>> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
>>> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
>>> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
>>> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation
>>>
>>> Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int%2Fipday&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505848556&sdata=S%2BdSQzbaw9nqwZZyxONj%2FO0tmTxsY0ohyn69eTXE%2FpI%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2Fworldipday&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505848556&sdata=UgNkJ0zctwwKbA%2BCShqC6EQ%2FyzYXZFQdpAlNmssjplM%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message
>>> may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If
>>> you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the
>>> sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all
>>> e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1cb6c609e6042807af208d48c7bb9d2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287910468596475&sdata=wWLmXEHyKcM061x4%2F1Gc3fZh5LgyUh8RvMR9zR7l2yo%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=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505858564&sdata=2bGurU9RuIXQe%2FqGG%2Bm9MUguEqUMhLRsy%2FNjn5%2FJ9SY%3D&reserved=0