[gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise

Cyntia King cking at modernip.com
Mon Aug 14 00:10:38 UTC 2017

Hi George,


You’re not “educating” me - I fully understand the difference between professional discourse & bombastic rant.  You draw a false equivalence between matters of assault/human suffering and domain registrations.  This isn’t “wallop” it’s disregard for the relative importance of these events.  Let’s keep our arguments professional & not needlessly provocative.


I have read your emails & I understand your POV.

I have presented my own views & I’m satisfied you understand them.

I’m ready to vote.



Cyntia King

E:  cking at modernip

O:  +1 81-ModernIP

C:  +1 818.209.6088


From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 1:24 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise


Hi folks,

Combining multiple responses into a single (long) email, as before:

Table of Contents

1. Partial Response to Cyntia (second part first)
2. Defending vigorous free expression (response to Cyntia and Greg)
3. Response to Georges N.

1. Cyntia wrote:


Ignoring the first half of that email for now, and addressing the second half, your statements are incorrect for the following reasons:

a) "trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name" is obviously false. They do not bar non-infringing use. You appear to fail to understand the limits of what trademarks represent. (if you do understand those limits, you wouldn't have made that overreaching statement) Once you actually do understand those limits, one can develop a more nuanced position that properly gives weight to all sides of these issues. In essence, it's the failure to understand the limits of trademarks that is causing some of these bad policy choices. The first step towards finding consensus is for those on your side to acknowledge that trademark owners have limited rights. Can you acknowledge that, and form a consensus as to the actual boundaries of those limits in law? Or will you cling to the notion that there are no limits? 

b) "those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not" There are two aspects and/or interpretations of that:
(i) perhaps you intended to refer to the *legal* benefits. As I noted in point 1.(a) above, there are limits to those. The benefits are curative in nature, and not preemptive. Someone could open a refreshment stand, today, and sell horse urine with the bottle label "Coca Cola". The famous brand owner might stop that potentially*** infringing trademark usage through a lawsuit. They can't *preemptively*, in law, prevent someone from exercising their free expression rights, for example, to compare the taste of those two liquids (perhaps they might do so on CocaCola.horse, an unregistered domain; I drink neither of those two liquids, so have no opinion on the matter). [*** I say potentially infringing, because if it was an artist selling those bottles as a form of art, with full knowledge to the buyers of said art,  there could be an interesting constitutional question]

(ii) perhaps you're instead referencing ICANN-granted "benefits", instead. That then becomes a circular argument, treating ICANN-granted "benefits" as the justification for "ICANN-granted benefits". That's treating  those benefits as an *entitlement*.

c) "Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled" This is an overused argument. How many trademarks have ever experienced "Genericide"?


Of that set, which ones were cancelled because of a failure to register a domain name (that was then subsequently registered by someone else), and of that subset, which ones were cancelled because of *infringing use* (cybersquatting), as opposed to non-infringing use? Show us some actual stats. I believe that number (i.e. any genericide case that even intersected with domain names) to be very low, and might even be zero. Without actual examples which intersect the domain name space, then this is more fiction than reality.

Furthermore, that risk (that genericide would occur if one failed to stop every infringing use) is exceedingly small if one is a victim of de minimis cybersquatting. One can use sites like ZFBot or DomainTools or other domain scanning tools to find large numbers of *actually registered* domains that infringe on "Google" or other famous brands. There's no ongoing onus on them that requires that they eliminate every single infringing use. Indeed, Google has repeatedly beaten back attempts to genericide its brand, even in cases that *involve* domain names, see:


Furthermore, your arguments, if true (which they're not), extended to their logical conclusion imply that there should be sunrise rules at the top level. Please explain why everything that you said doesn't also apply at the top level, but instead only applies at the 2nd level. Why isn't the registered trademark owner of "HOTEL" or "HOTELS" impacted by those TLDs, in your eyes? Why weren't they given priority access, but instead we got a landrush system for new gTLDs, with no sunrise.

The risks are comparable, yet an entirely *different* solution was arrived at.

That's not the only example. Every day tens of thousands of domain names expire, and become newly available for registration. Those expired domains are highly contested, e.g. at venues like NameJet, Snapnames, and others.  It's a daily landrush. Why is there no "sunrise" period incorporated into the expiring domain name policies of ICANN, to give trademark owners first dibs on that stream of domain names, ahead of companies like HugeDomains, or any other prospective registrant? Why the difference? If trademark owners are entitled to sunrises in all cases (which they clearly do not, e.g. at the top level), then isn't this an ICANN policy failure that needs to be corrected? Since this is the RPM working group for *all* TLDs, shouldn't that be part of our charter, to create sunrise benefits for all TLDs (including the top level itself!), but especially for .com? If yes (and I can't see why you would argue otherwise, given your stated position), explain why. If not, why the disparate treatment of those situations?

Once you start to buy into the false belief of trademark owners having an entitlement, where does that end? Why aren't they entitled to *discounts* on dot-com registrations, compared to other registrants, because they're so "special", for example? Doesn't the public interest *demand* and *require* they get a discount, by your reasoning, so they can buy those "defensive" registrations and protect consumers?

My position isn't for special treatment for non-trademark owners -- it's for a level playing field, simple equality, just like that which exists at the top-level, and which registrars also enjoy.

2. Defending vigorous free expression (response to Cyntia and Greg)

Cyntia and Greg (ignoring the peanut gallery of +1 replies, for the moment) wrote:

This is a policy forum, and political speech (trying to change policy outcomes) is the most highly protected form of expression. I shouldn't have to say that or educate people on this topic, it saddens me that I do, but it bears repeating since some are too quick to censor or constrain speech that they disagree with, or that comes from their opponents.

Cyntia did not identify what exactly she considered "inflammatory" that she wanted taken "down a notch", but that's like asking someone who is trying to make a point to "make your point with less impact". If one is trying to create a change, one *does*, by definition, want to use language that packs a whallop, that makes an impact. That's called effective communication. I respectfully decline to be less effective in painting the picture of the high stakes involved, or constrain my choice of metaphors so that they paint a less impactful image of the concepts I'm trying to describe. Greg did mention two metaphors, so let me refer to them and their specific context from my emails:


I attempted to rebut the concept that anything "beneficial" to one party is "good overall". If this was a dry scholarly article in an academic journal, I might have written:

"Party A took an action that increased their utility by X, but that impacted Party B (or the rest of society) through a decrease of Y. X is less than Y."

(of course, I'd have used the less than sign, <, instead of typing out "is less than", but I didn't want to lose some of those with limited math skills)

Now, contrast that with what I actually wrote. Which one had more impact, style, and painted a clear picture in one's head? I think the answer is obvious. If one wants to be an effective communicator, one rule is to not be boring. If I replaced my metaphor with the language above, I'd be boring. Instead, it created a relatable image that folks could use to grasp the concept. The concept was that someone could do something good for themselves (get a seat on a bus), but at the expense of others that has a greater cost (pushing a pregnant woman out of her seat). Easily understood. 'Are you not entertained?'


'Boring' does not break through the clutter of modern communications, and doesn't compete effectively in the marketplace of ideas or attention. 

Maybe you prefer I use a different metaphor. Should I have used one of the following?

Alternative Metaphor A: "The prancing unicorn took a shortcut through the farmer's field, on the way to the lake. By doing so, though, some of the farmer's crops were damaged."

Alternative Metaphor B: "The princess asked Rumpelstiltskin to conjure her some toast. Since all magic comes with a price, when he did so, the bakery burned down."

These illustrated the exact same concept. Were they as effective and impactful, or memorable? I don't think so. You just read them and have already forgotten them (look up again!), and will have forgotten them tomorrow, despite just having read them twice! Some metaphors are more powerful than others.

The other metaphor was used to illustrate the concept of Discrimination. Discrimination is a powerful, impactful word, that is easily relatable and understood. An alternative option would be to use the concept of "favouritism". Favouritism is defined as:


"unfair support shown to one person or group, especially by someone in authority:"

Which word is more impactful, discrimination, or favouritism? We all know the answer, because I made the right choice, the one that advances my position, the one that paints the most vivid description to illustrate the high stakes. Some might tolerate "favouritism", but most won't tolerate "discrimination". Favouritism is the word one might use to try to disguise or weaken or dilute discriminatory behaviour, like sunrise periods at ICANN.

Let's take a step back. What is a metaphor? Wikipedia is a starting point and has a nice summary:


"A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers, for rhetorical effect, to one thing by mentioning another thing. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas."

That's a very nice description. *Hidden similarities*. This is not saying that two things are the *same*. It's saying that these things are two different things, but they share some aspect in common. 

So, yes, sunrise periods where a trademark holder unjustly jumps in line ahead of others, causing others damages, shares a similarity to a person knocking a pregnant woman out of her chair. And it also shares aspects or similarities with other discriminatory behaviour, such as racism, sexism, and all the other vile forms of discrimination that exist. And unlike cases where corrective measures are used to protect those oppressed victims of discrimination, trademark holders are *not* some oppressed group. They sunrise periods for new gTLDs are being used by some of the richest companies in the world, who need no special advantages over everyone else. The metaphor is vivid, strong, and illustrates my point. It provides a fresh insight, ones that others might not have considered before. That's what changes minds and positions, and change itself is what some people find dangerous.

The people that find change dangerous are happy with the status quo. They are content to "play for a stalemate" (hey, that's a metaphor! try to keep track of all the metaphors we use in daily language) I'm not playing for a stalemate --- I'm playing to win, and so are others who seek change. You can identify the people that are playing for a stalemate by their behaviour, for example they will try to stifle/censor dissent, call for premature end to debate (just like Greg attempted to do at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002319.html by an appeal to higher authority), among other things.

Noah Chomsky said that "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…."

Isn't that what the more censorious folks are attempting to do, namely disguise an echo chamber by creating the "illusion" of debate, but limit the spectrum of what is acceptable, to ensure that the status quo is not upset? Trying to limit which metaphors are used is part of that.

Effective communication means using simple accessible language. You'll note I often will write in a conversational manner. I could instead write in a formal, academic and dry tone (look me up in Google Scholar), but that's not effective in this policy arena (another metaphor!). Another thing is reinforcing key messages. One needs to be authentic. One needs to also be memorable. Have you forgotten my metaphors, or are they burned (metaphorically!) into your soul? Madison Avenue can tell you metaphors that create an emotional impact help sell -- and we're trying to sell our ideas in this competitive marketplace. It's a fair tool. 

When folks were arguing/debating about SOPA or Net Neutrality other "technical" matters, the ones who were most successful knew all these things. 

One wants to keep people on their toes, to not know what's coming next. One also wants to be quotable (and notice who gets quoted, and who doesn't on this list, and whose threads are starved for attention -- not mine!). And you know who does this effectively? He's sitting in the Oval Office! See the article at:


which analyzed Donald Trump's communication style (yes, I set you up there, by saying non-controversial points you nodded to, and then hitting you with that; how was that for an emotional response?). That was a pre-election analysis, too. One of his most effective metaphors was "Drain The Swamp". Effective, memorable, and he won.

Of course, I'm not Donald Trump (I back up my statements with rigorous analysis, can "show the work/math" when called upon, etc). I have a long track record of making an impact within ICANN policymaking, and do my homework. But, one can learn from studying Trump, even if one disagrees with his policies/statements/ideas.

As for "inflammatory", what does that really mean? I think some folks want to "tone down" (translation = make less effective) certain speech, because it would neuter their opponents. No thanks, I'll respectfully decline.

Trump used the expression "Fire and Fury". That's in every newspaper and on every TV news channel. Highly effective, simple, and inflammatory (literally!). Said by the President of the United States, and acceptable political speech. Pick up any newspaper and the "tone" of what is acceptable is certainly comparable to the metaphors I use. Watch John Oliver on HBO, or other late night talk show hosts, and see what is acceptable. 

If you want to see boring, go read the latest couple of months of the Business Constituency mailing list:


They have had fewer than 100 posts in all of 2017 so far. They've had less in that time span than the 92 we've had so far this month (13 days) alone:


For those who don't have access to it (either directly, or via moles, leaks, whistleblowers, forwarded emails, etc.), one can imagine what the IP constituency or other ICANN private mailing lists might look like. When's the last time they said anything quotable? Contrast that with this one, where there is vigorous debate. Some don't like that, because they feel they might lose in the marketplace of ideas. Take a look at every ICANN period, with its dry technical reports, that elicit few if any responses. That's by design. Contrast that with how other organizations that seek change (EFF, ACLU, etc.) communicate to the world, to encourage debate and get their message out. If you want stability, be boring, very boring. For those who want to change that stability, take risks, be exciting. When I raised the alarm bells in the past regarding tiered pricing, for example, I wasn't boring.

There's almost an industry these days of "fake outrage" used to attempt to stifle opposing views. That fake outrage is directed only at opposing views, but not when used to advance their own positions. They'll even attack your "style", just as I was criticized for not "top posting"!!


one of the sillier disputes on this list to date. Someone very wise told me early on to expect lawyerly "distractions" and other tactics. They were so insightful and right. And they laughed at how they didn't need to intervene, as I was doing a pretty good job of handling those attacks without any help. As Lady Mormont would say, one man from Bear Island is worth ten from the mainland. :-)


Back to what's "inflammatory". Those expressing fake outrage are like those who suggested they "hated the Red Wedding episode of Game of Thrones, that after the *fifth* time watching it, they had to turn away!" Or, "Can you believe what just happened on the Bachelor, I'm never going to watch it again!" The ratings might suggest otherwise.

Of course, you're still with me, even though you pretend you're not reading all the way through…let's go on. You're not bored, yet, waiting to see what I might say next. Hmmmm, I read somewhere that's "effective communication". :-) (as he typed away in his conversational style)

Here are some examples of metaphors, that we see every day!

e.g. some from http://www.knowgramming.com/war_metaphors.htm

"The sky is falling" (referencing an apocalyptic end of the world)
"The glass ceiling" (used by Ms. Clinton in the election campaign)
"a ceasefire for an argument" (war imagery)
"a firestorm of controversy"
"he was bombarded with questions" (war imagery)
"the president is under fire by the press today" (guns)
"to crash and burn on a date"
"love is a battlefield" (a famous song)
"cigarettes are a ticking time bomb"
"that movie really bombed over the weekend at the box office"
"it's a witch hunt" (Trump on Russia investigation)
"to throw domain name registrants under the bus through ICANN's bad policies" (maybe I'm alone in using that every day; but, you should too; humour is effective, too!)

Some violent imagery, but that paints a lucid image in one's mind. Terms like these are normal on TV or newspapers, political cartoons, or everyday usage.

But, then you might say "Oh, but George, those on *our* side are not using those kinds of metaphors. Trump is a monster, and anything he does, using vivid metaphors is deplorable."

How about former President Obama? As a candidate, it's known that he used the metaphor that "if your opponents bring a knife to a fight, you should bring a gun."


That's an extremely violent metaphor.  But, it's a common and accepted expression, used everyday. How often do folks say:

"You come at the king, you best not miss"


from The Wire!

During our most recent call, Greg Shatan himself used a vivid metaphor, with a comparison to a "racket":


"That clearly hasn't happened. I don't - certainly don't think that it was intended as a way to extract very large, relatively speaking, prices from trademark owners. It kind of turns the sunrise protection - sunrise period into a racket." (page 9)

I'm assuming he wasn't referencing the game of tennis, but was describing a protection racket and comparing the registry operators to the Mafia:


I've used that exact same metaphor myself, as I'm sure many others here have done. Including Esther Dyson:


Go to Google and search for "ICANN racket" (without the quotes), and there are many, many matches.

Nobody bats an eye when those kinds of expressions/metaphors are tossed around, or can credibly call for them to be censored. But, when a political opponent uses them effectively, there's fake moral outrage from the predictable quarters.

Also, as for the peanut gallery of +1 senders, take a note of point #1 at:


(I've made this point before) Folks selectively try to interpret the rules to their own benefit. My cheering section doesn't need to boost my self-esteem with +1s. :-) 

3. Response to Georges N.


That was a funny response. It might as well be from a template/cut and paste for some people, i.e. ignore references to the data/evidence, and just say "I disagree." His only "new" statement (perhaps to justify the email itself), was that the landrush proposal is "unworkable". It's not credible to say that, given that there's:

a) no sunrise for trademark owners at the top level; if landrush-only can "work" at the top-level it can work and the 2nd level
b) as I pointed out to Susan in this email above, a new point, no sunrise period for expiring domain names either (e.g. expiring dot-com domains). There's a daily landrush for expired domains, and somehow trademark owners manage just fine without any preferential access to those domains.

Also, you're the last person I'm trying to convince. You continue to make some of the most extremist statements of anyone on this list, e.g. just this past week:


"all of this in the name of some particular claimed harm that has not been proven to exist in the first place"

Really? Don't think that those statements go unnoticed. Maybe those on your side will try to get you to back off, because you might be doing their side a disservice with positions that are not credible. Trump didn't campaign in California, because that wasn't a swing state. Who are the "swing voters" in this PDP, and in the public at large? Certainly not you.

I, and like-minded others that support the EFF's proposal to eliminate the sunrise (and broadly speaking, support the rights of domain name registrants to equal access to domain names) are trying to convince others in this PDP and the public at large who are open to evidence-based policymaking, reasoning and debate.

By the way, for Cyntia, that message (the one directly above) by Georges used the metaphor of the "healthcare system" in the USA, i.e. repealing it. Was that potentially divisive metaphor unacceptable language that should also be banned? I don't think it is (regardless of one's political leanings), and I think it illustrates my earlier point, that folks are free to use the strong imagery they want to attempt to their points vivid. 

Ask yourself, was this email finished today, before sending? Or did I have it ready yesterday (Saturday), but chose to hit "send" just now (Sunday), at 2:22 pm, for maximum impact with no other distractions on a lazy Sunday afternoon and into Monday? Timing is another tool for effective communications too.

If anyone had any questions and wanted to pick up the phone, I'm always ready to talk to try to achieve a win-win consensus in ICANN policymaking. The best way to destroy your enemy is to turn them into a friend. 

That's all for now folks. Enjoy the rest of your weekend (I know I will!).


George Kirikos


On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Ariel Manoff <amanoff at vmf.com.ar <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> > wrote:

+1 Greg


Héctor Ariel Manoff
Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen
Viamonte 1145 10º Piso
C1053ABW Buenos Aires
República Argentina
Te: (54-11) 4371-6100
Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365
E-mail:  <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> amanoff at vmf.com.ar
Web:  <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar


Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias.

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you.



De: 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> ] En nombre de Greg Shatan
Enviado el: viernes, 11 de agosto de 2017 20:24
Para: Nahitchevansky, Georges
CC: gnso-rpm-wg
Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise


Agree with Cyntia as well.


In a few posts, trademark owners have gone from being compared to shoving pregnant women out of bus sets to being compared with racists.


It feels like Godwin's Law will be satisfied soon.




On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> > wrote:

+1 Cynthia. 


From: Cyntia King

Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:12 PM

To: 'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg'

Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise


Hi George,


I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch.

You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice.


Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not.  That bar exists to protect consumers.


We cannot ignore that TM owners:

*	Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc)
*	Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled
*	Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs


It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place.



Cyntia King

CEO & Founder

 <mailto:cking at modernip.com> cking at modernip.com

-----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 George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise


Hi Cyntia


On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King < <mailto:cking at modernip.com> cking at modernip.com> wrote:

> TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.


There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.


> And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything.  Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.


That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution"

isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise).


It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it.




George Kirikos

416-588-0269 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> 

 <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/


gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

 <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg



Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:(404)%20815-6500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.


***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 


gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170813/f01752df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170813/f01752df/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170813/f01752df/image001-0001.png>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list