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

J. Scott Evans jsevans at adobe.com
Thu Apr 27 14:26:37 UTC 2017


I meant write "cost effective". Typing with thumbs before 5 AM 😄. Sorry to confuse.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>> wrote:

J Scott wrote:

"A letter or call to a registrar is FAR more complex at effective than a UDRP action. Unfortunately, the former rarely results in the behavior being stopped and the later does"

This should be a serious matter for ICANN compliance.

Best regards,

Paul.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>> wrote:
This should be a serious matter for ICANN compliance.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:30 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>> wrote:
A letter or call to a registrar is FAR more complex at effective than a UDRP action. Unfortunately, the former rarely results in the behavior being stopped and the later does.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 27, 2017, at 3:14 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>> wrote:

Paul,

It is important to look at the actual language of section 3.18 of the RAA.  This provides that registrars “shall take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond” to allegations of illegal activity.

Looking at this carefully crafted contract language, it is easy to see that taking reasonable steps is subject to interpretation, just as is the corresponding obligation to investigate and respond.  This is in no way meant to suggest that registrars are not complying with their ICANN obligations, but whether those obligations necessarily address the claimed illegal behavior and achieve the result sought is another matter altogether.  RPMs on the other hand are specifically designed with criteria to assist a substantive determination (which the registrar need only implement).

Indeed, the very fact that we have a working group dedicated to address ongoing claims of trademark abuse suggests that some claimed abuse is not being addressed through this RAA provision (which by the way is titled – my emphasis: “Registrar’s Abuse Contact and Duty to Investigate Reports of Abuse”).

Quickly:  searching WIPO’s public case database for the term “fraud” produces 1066 results (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=fraud&rows=20<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Famc%2Fen%2Fdomains%2Fsearch%2Ffulltext_decisions.jsp%3Ftab%3D1%26q%3Dfraud%26rows%3D20&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=ObK9VTHBPGrufXw9rVbAeMSmPR4LDiAFv6UouawPAgw%3D&reserved=0>), searching for “phishing” yields 659 results (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=phishing&rows=20<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Famc%2Fen%2Fdomains%2Fsearch%2Ffulltext_decisions.jsp%3Ftab%3D1%26q%3Dphishing%26rows%3D20&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=EPAoSFpvzSW0q%2BAll7SLMLN62KSXT8rpyo9IUPlRtIA%3D&reserved=0>), etc.

If those instances of claimed abuse could be solved with a simple request to the registrar, trademark owners might be saved the time and expense of invoking RPMs.  It is therefore difficult to see what is “incorrect” about this “narrative” which is based on actual cases, not assumptions.

Best regards,

Brian

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 Paul Tattersfield
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Rebecca Tushnet
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Fwd: Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)

Greg, a similar line of thinking was used by WIPO in response to the initial Report on IGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00000.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.icann.org%2Flists%2Fcomments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17%2Fmsg00000.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=JbNkJvGhH91k%2BoSORw6sLtAIFc%2Bb8pRJeBnZ2nBu67g%3D&reserved=0>

It is troubling if this line of thinking is held within the wider ICANN community, especially so, if this line of thinking is held by those seeking to change the current RPMs.

A much better understanding of the underlying issues is needed if we are to better protect the goods and services of all rights holders through better RPMs and at the same time build a more equitable framework for all.

My reply https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00038.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.icann.org%2Flists%2Fcomments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17%2Fmsg00038.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=PhO4Rkkg5jPCnI0AZtXula%2FnZ3cx834B3tUc5xAXSqQ%3D&reserved=0> to WIPO’s comments demonstrates on a very simple level how your assumptions set an incorrect narrative which sends people off in the wrong direction when seeking to solve the problem.

RPMs are not the best way of dealing with the kind of bad behaviour you cite. A far better approach is to use section 3.18 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) which requires registrars to take action against this sort of behaviour.

The advantage of using the 3.18 approach is it doesn’t require any domain name infringement to take action which means all of the bad behaviour involving a domain cited by yourself and WIPO can easily be dealt with and without any costs beyond the time spent identifying offending sites and requesting their suspension.

Paul

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
What would lead cybersquatters to choose common terms that, while
protectable for specific goods or services, are not generally known
for those meanings, as opposed to APPLE or MICROSOFT or other strong
marks?  That seems like a poor cybersquatting strategy, especially
done retail rather than wholesale.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence too.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> We have no idea who abandoned these registration attempts, or even if it was
> done by humans, much less rightsholders.
>
> If we want to make assumptions that support arguments, rather than engaging
> in evidence-based inquiry, I'll offer the assumption that all the abandoned
> carts were started by cybersquatters that intended to use the domains to
> engage in spam, malware, phishing, spearphishing, fraud, theft and botnet
> farming.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:27 PM Rebecca Tushnet
> <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Forwarding to match.
>>
>> If you think that lots of people have valid uses--including rights--in
>> those terms, then when they stop trying to register those terms, that
>> is overdeterrence.  I think what I said was clear.
>>
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>> Georgetown Law
>> 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> > Your guess -- and overdeterrence is just a guess, with nothing to back
>> > it up
>> > -- is as good as mine.  My guess is that it absolutely is not
>> > overdeterrence.
>> >
>> > And my point was that your statement was a mischaracterization of the
>> > way
>> > the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims work, as well as a mischaracterization of
>> > how
>> > trademarks work.  So I don't think "My point exactly" is what you meant
>> > to
>> > say (though I wish it were).
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> > Greg Shatan
>> > C: 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>
>> > S: gsshatan
>> > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:646-845-9428>
>> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Rebecca Tushnet
>> > <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My point exactly.  So what explains the over 90% abandonment rate,
>> >> other than overdeterrence, especially with those most returned terms?
>> >> Rebecca Tushnet
>> >> Georgetown Law
>> >> 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > "Maybe absolutely no one else besides the TMCH entrant/s had a
>> >> > legitimate
>> >> > business using those terms."
>> >> >
>> >> > That is clearly and absolutely not the basis of trademark rights,
>> >> > trademark
>> >> > registration or entry into the TMCH.  Nor is it the way Sunrise or
>> >> > Claims
>> >> > work.  Ridiculous.
>> >> >
>> >> > Greg
>> >> >
>> >> > Greg Shatan
>> >> > C: 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>
>> >> > S: gsshatan
>> >> > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:646-845-9428>
>> >> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rebecca Tushnet
>> >> > <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, because we don't have good survey evidence, one of the
>> >> >> questions
>> >> >> is what we can infer from the circumstantial evidence available to
>> >> >> us,
>> >> >> particularly the over 90% abandonment rate combined with the top
>> >> >> queries being words like forex, cloud, and love.  Maybe absolutely
>> >> >> no
>> >> >> one else besides the TMCH entrant/s had a legitimate business using
>> >> >> those terms.  But I doubt it.
>> >> >> Rebecca Tushnet
>> >> >> Georgetown Law
>> >> >> 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:37 PM, icannlists
>> >> >> <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Thanks Rebecca.  I've never heard of a trademark owner being
>> >> >> > deterred
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > a claims notice since one of the explicit defenses in the UDRP is
>> >> >> > when a
>> >> >> > registrant has rights or legitimate interests in a corresponding
>> >> >> > trademark.
>> >> >> > So, I think that one may be a bit of a red herring.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > However, your comment about avoiding overreach is well received
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > should keep it in mind while at the same time not under-reaching
>> >> >> > either -
>> >> >> > when we do that, Grandma gets phished.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Best,
>> >> >> > Paul
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> > From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>]
>> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:17 PM
>> >> >> > To: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>
>> >> >> > Cc: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>;
>> >> >> > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>> >> >> > (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Avoiding overreaching is pro-trademark, as the public reaction to
>> >> >> > SOPA/PIPA and patent trolls has shown with respect to copyright
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > patent.
>> >> >> > There are also the interests of trademark owners who aren't
>> >> >> > participating in
>> >> >> > this process but may want to register domain names that are
>> >> >> > perfectly
>> >> >> > legitimate for their goods/services and jurisdictions.  Some of
>> >> >> > them
>> >> >> > may
>> >> >> > inevitably receive notices and be deterred, but there are steps we
>> >> >> > can take
>> >> >> > to limit that problem.
>> >> >> > Rebecca Tushnet
>> >> >> > Georgetown Law
>> >> >> > 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:50 PM, icannlists
>> >> >> > <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Thanks Rebecca.  I'm not characterizing you as anti-trademark;
>> >> >> >> just
>> >> >> >> your arguments and positions to date on this list.  We would very
>> >> >> >> much
>> >> >> >> welcome anything favorable to trademarks that you wish to add to
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> discourse.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Best,
>> >> >> >> Paul
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> >> From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>]
>> >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 8:00 PM
>> >> >> >> To: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>
>> >> >> >> Cc: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>;
>> >> >> >> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and
>> >> >> >> #16
>> >> >> >> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Please don't characterize me as anti-trademark; I strongly
>> >> >> >> believe
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> the consumer protection function of trademarks, and also in
>> >> >> >> trademark
>> >> >> >> protection in some circumstances for business purposes.  See
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/registering-disagreement-registra<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fharvardlawreview.org%2F2017%2F01%2Fregistering-disagreement-registra&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=iu0yMvKbDyZebmCpHx42pp%2BuQGNY3aNnUVn7YgzLoA8%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >> >> tion-in-modern-american-trademark-law/
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Asking again: for those of you who think it doesn't matter if
>> >> >> >> claimants
>> >> >> >> who don't own relevant rights get to use the TMCH, what then did
>> >> >> >> ICANN mean
>> >> >> >> by its stated intent not to expand trademark rights?
>> >> >> >> Rebecca Tushnet
>> >> >> >> Georgetown Law
>> >> >> >> 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, icannlists
>> >> >> >> <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> Thanks Rebecca.  There is not much new here.  Whomever registers
>> >> >> >>> a
>> >> >> >>> second level domain name first (Sunrise - TM owner), Premium
>> >> >> >>> (Rich
>> >> >> >>> person)
>> >> >> >>> or Landrush (TM owner who didn't want to pay the Sunrise
>> >> >> >>> shakedown
>> >> >> >>> price or
>> >> >> >>> regular folks like all of us), someone gets the exclusive rights
>> >> >> >>> to
>> >> >> >>> that
>> >> >> >>> second level.  So, it is not just a question of if, but of when
>> >> >> >>> and
>> >> >> >>> who.  I
>> >> >> >>> think it is OK to just say "I don't want it to be a trademark
>> >> >> >>> owner."
>> >> >> >>> Others will disagree, but we don't have to keep this in a
>> >> >> >>> mysterious context
>> >> >> >>> or otherwise try to layer on some free speech issue that doesn't
>> >> >> >>> exist.
>> >> >> >>> Trademark owners want them first in order to protect their
>> >> >> >>> brands
>> >> >> >>> and
>> >> >> >>> consumers.  Others who are anti-trademarks don't want them to
>> >> >> >>> have
>> >> >> >>> them
>> >> >> >>> first and would prefer someone else gets the exclusive right.
>> >> >> >>> Fair
>> >> >> >>> enough.
>> >> >> >>> Now we see if we can get to consensus on changing the AGB.  I
>> >> >> >>> doubt
>> >> >> >>> we will,
>> >> >> >>> but at least the free speech veneer is pulled back.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Best,
>> >> >> >>> Paul
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> -----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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rebecca
>> >> >> >>> Tushnet
>> >> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:11 PM
>> >> >> >>> To: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>
>> >> >> >>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and
>> >> >> >>> #16
>> >> >> >>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> By that logic the mandate not to expand on trademark rights
>> >> >> >>> would
>> >> >> >>> have been pointless because no activity in domain name space
>> >> >> >>> could
>> >> >> >>> ever have expanded trademark rights.  Call it a right, call it a
>> >> >> >>> privilege, call it an alien from Xenon if you like, but ICANN
>> >> >> >>> did
>> >> >> >>> not
>> >> >> >>> want trademark owners to be able to assert control over domain
>> >> >> >>> names
>> >> >> >>> in excess of what underlying trademark law would have allowed.
>> >> >> >>> Under
>> >> >> >>> the "nothing in domain names can expand trademark rights because
>> >> >> >>> they're never exclusive" logic, was the ICANN direction
>> >> >> >>> completely
>> >> >> >>> meaningless, or did it have some meaning?  (Trademark rights, of
>> >> >> >>> course, are never "exclusive" either, which is why we can use
>> >> >> >>> any
>> >> >> >>> examples we want in this discussion.) Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown
>> >> >> >>> Law
>> >> >> >>> 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Silver, Bradley via gnso-rpm-wg
>> >> >> >>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> Jeremy - the TMCH does not allow exclusive rights in domains.
>> >> >> >>>> Having
>> >> >> >>>> a mark in the TMCH affords nothing close an exclusive right.
>> >> >> >>>> That's a basic
>> >> >> >>>> truth which shouldn’t be ignored.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> -----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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>> >> >> >>>> Malcolm
>> >> >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:32 PM
>> >> >> >>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> >> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and
>> >> >> >>>> #16
>> >> >> >>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> On 26/4/17 9:00 am, Colin O'Brien wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> Nice try Rebecca but I'm not attempting to overturn the apple
>> >> >> >>>>> cart.
>> >> >> >>>>> If you have actual examples of problems then provide them
>> >> >> >>>>> otherwise this is
>> >> >> >>>>> an indulgent  academic exercise.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The fact that the TMCH is allowing exclusive rights in domains
>> >> >> >>>> that
>> >> >> >>>> go beyond the equivalent rights in domestic trademark law is
>> >> >> >>>> itself a
>> >> >> >>>> problem if we accept that the TMCH was meant to track trademark
>> >> >> >>>> law.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> --
>> >> >> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> >> >> >>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> >> >> >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> >> >> >>>> https://eff.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=KzOy4znSpz0a9ehfGktwBDMo2ewTzNlJvPB42cYQEiE%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >> >>>> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Public key:
>> >> >> >>>> https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=xkQT0KuikbckR%2B74w%2Fz94XQg5UvkhiHvIw%2F7a4v5%2BjI%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >> >>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF
>> >> >> >>>> 1122
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> ====================================================================
>> >> >> >>>> =
>> >> >> >>>> =
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or
>> >> >> >>>> that
>> >> >> >>>> asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you
>> >> >> >>>> have
>> >> >> >>>> any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its
>> >> >> >>>> sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000<tel:(212)%20484-6000> or
>> >> >> >>>> via
>> >> >> >>>> email at ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> =================================================================
>> >> >> >>>> This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is
>> >> >> >>>> intended
>> >> >> >>>> only for the use of the
>> >> >> >>>> addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential.
>> >> >> >>>> If
>> >> >> >>>> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
>> >> >> >>>> the
>> >> >> >>>> employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
>> >> >> >>>> recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> >> >> >>>> distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of
>> >> >> >>>> this
>> >> >> >>>> information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the
>> >> >> >>>> information herein is strictly prohibited except by the
>> >> >> >>>> intended
>> >> >> >>>> recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes
>> >> >> >>>> this
>> >> >> >>>> message. If you have received this communication in error,
>> >> >> >>>> please
>> >> >> >>>> immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message
>> >> >> >>>> and
>> >> >> >>>> any
>> >> >> >>>> copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> =================================================================
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=3ked8x9YllpWvJmgM05B1XWFTHvCz%2FsF0MQ2tL9qQME%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=3ked8x9YllpWvJmgM05B1XWFTHvCz%2FsF0MQ2tL9qQME%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> ________________________________
>> >> >> >>> 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.
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=3ked8x9YllpWvJmgM05B1XWFTHvCz%2FsF0MQ2tL9qQME%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=3ked8x9YllpWvJmgM05B1XWFTHvCz%2FsF0MQ2tL9qQME%3D&reserved=0>
>
> --
>
> Greg Shatan
> C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%20845-9428>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838788516&sdata=3ked8x9YllpWvJmgM05B1XWFTHvCz%2FsF0MQ2tL9qQME%3D&reserved=0>

World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation
Web: www.wipo.int/ipday<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fipday&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0a15bba8e10431b744208d48d790a90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288998389392471&sdata=lY5q306mfyLtVTobBjNBMbM5bI72u92Tn9AdRPJwnZw%3D&reserved=0>
Facebook: www.facebook.com/worldipday<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fworldipday&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf0a15bba8e10431b744208d48d790a90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288998389392471&sdata=4K8LXJ8pRrbK%2B4Tb7q3LdxJpFm6%2FAPEy43Fui%2B5ypzA%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<mailto: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%7C90df5d6dcb74419126d508d48d56373b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288848838798520&sdata=6gkVeOAHSV8PQ%2Bmx9Vb1jbuW%2Bivndr3k4ovY0D5usSA%3D&reserved=0


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170427/d4335263/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list