[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Jul 19 19:57:53 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday,
19 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki
page: <https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19jul17-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p3u8rx9s8w3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3011643f1f7b0839
e912cc31b822a52f47df76a428b3e4dce623421de5d0964f>
https://participate.icann.org/p3u8rx9s8w3/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/
Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 July 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 17:00
UTC for 90 minute duration
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_c
3vwAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
c3vwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f
8&s=uArRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=uA
rRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e=
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):пщщв
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):good
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Paul Tattersfield:Hi George,Everyone
George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute
George Kirikos:Hey Paul.
Steve Levy:Hello all!
Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves
Philip Corwin:Hello all
Mary Wong:We stopped at the end of Q1
Jeff Neuman:All - For some reason Susan Payne is not able to get in
David McAuley:Sorry to arrive late
Mary Wong:@Jeff, can she reboot AC?
Susan Payne:Hi, I'm in
Kathy Kleiman:Mary, could you post the link?
Terri Agnew:all documents are on the wiki agenda page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_c
3vwAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
c3vwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f
8&s=uArRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=uA
rRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e=
George Kirikos:If you click the top right corner of the pod, then do a
"Save As", you can get the file in PDF to open on your own computer.
Poncelet Ileleji:Good day all
Mary Wong:The updated Claims document is here:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow
nload_attachments_66091891_Trademark-2520Claims-2520Sub-2520Team-2520report-
2520-2D-2520updated-252014-2520July.docx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D
1500076075000-26api-3Dv2
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do
wnload_attachments_66091891_Trademark-2520Claims-2520Sub-2520Team-2520report
-2520-2D-2520updated-252014-2520July.docx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3
D1500076075000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4
I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlT
MVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=8jnCQLKITR86VqO8ueYXyf2ZYBM9TOat9zXuOP2lCbI&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=8j
nCQLKITR86VqO8ueYXyf2ZYBM9TOat9zXuOP2lCbI&e=
Paul McGrady:HowDEE!
George Kirikos:Which question are we on now?
Mary Wong:Q2
Mary Wong:The highlighted comments are those from Joburg, those that
aren't highlighted were akready in the dcocument before Joburg.
Mary Wong:And Jon also requested lat week that the same thing be done for
Q1, I think.
George Kirikos:We're on page 8 of the PDF (rightmost notes).
Kathy Kleiman:Tx Terri and Mary!
George Kirikos:New wording looks fine.
Susan Payne:sorry, which Q
George Kirikos:Page 10, Susan, very bottom.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q4
Susan Payne:ta
George Kirikos:Q4.
David McAuley:Think Kathy's point makes sense
Susan Payne:+1 Paul
George Kirikos:"intended purpose" can be interpreted even more broadly,
though, to include "balance" for registrants, etc.
Paul McGrady:Happy to
Colin O'Brien:+1 Paul
George Kirikos:i.e. "intended purpose" isn't just from the perspective of
the TM holders.
David McAuley:no pressure Paul
Michael R Graham:Sorry for the delay in joining -- Unavoidable business
meeting.
Paul McGrady:"Is the exact match limitation on Trademark Claims serving
the intended purposes of the Trademark Claims RPM?"
Mary Wong:@Kristine, we can mention this in a footnote, as you suggested.
George Kirikos:That presumes that it's a "limitation" --- criteria is more
neutral.
Kathy Kleiman:instead of limitation, criteria
Kathy Kleiman:same comment as George :-)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I am not saying it is not possible, it requires
update of the Registrar's software platform, and it takes time and money ...
not all Registrars register all TLDs for this reason until Claims over
Paul McGrady:Paul Mom: "It's Brilliant!"
George Kirikos:Requirement is also fine.
Kathy Kleiman:gppd
Kathy Kleiman:good
Paul McGrady:Requirement is fine.
Amr Elsadr:Reminder that question 4 was meant to address the non-exact
match proposals
Michael R Graham:Agree "requirement"
David McAuley:agreed
Cyntia King:Good
Jeff Neuman:I am honestly confused. Is it that it served the purpose of
the Claim Service (narrow) or isnt the real question be "protecting the
legitimate rights of others" which is really where claims came from/ But
honestly we can tinker with the questions for years and never get to
substance
Mary Wong:Will do, Kristine
George Kirikos:Right, Jeff, that was the point I was trying to make above.
George Kirikos:Some noise on Kathy's line?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm hearing a little static,
but can hear her clearly otherwise...anyone else?
Mary Wong:@Kathy, as a starting point we can look at what Deloitte does, a
laid out in the TMCH Requireemnts.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hear the same clicks
Paul McGrady:There is a little static, but its not a serious impairment
(at least on my end of the line)
George Kirikos:CIRA has those expansions based on accents, when doing
their weekly "TBR" (to be released) expired domains. e.g. click on the "+"
to the right of a domain name with characters, to see all the variations
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tbr.cira.ca_-3Fdatet-3D
2017_07_19
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tbr.cira.ca_-3Fdatet-3
D2017_07_19&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXA
vSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00
Wqt1f8&s=UBWtOZSTI1lYtZf9Ljcdf5RCcteelpYLWsHsQDT_s6E&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=UB
WtOZSTI1lYtZf9Ljcdf5RCcteelpYLWsHsQDT_s6E&e=
George Kirikos:CIRA = .ca ccTLD
Terri Agnew:finding line
Paul McGrady:Without reaching the answer to Kathy's question, I think her
suggestion to include such a question is a good one.
Kathy Kleiman:Are there smaller changes to the exact match criteria that
should be made to accomodate IDNs more easily?
Mary Wong:WE'll add it to the update after this call, along with the
additional examples from Amadeo.
George Kirikos:MW22 was the "simulation" that I suggested, yes.
Kathy Kleiman:[using Amadeau's exampls of umlaut and accents]
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):someone has to do it ...
George Kirikos:Although, it basically requires an almost full
implementation of the proposal.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):rules 1-10 are more or less simple
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but 11-12 reuqires creation of dictionaries, and it
is an expert work, I am not sure we are into it
George Kirikos:I've already analyzed the resultant expansion of the
various rules on the mailing list.....it's a huge increase in matches,
mathematically.
Michael R Graham:I wholeheartedly support the notion of getting real
eimpirical information regarding effects of TMCH Claims Notice and
Exact/inexact matches.
George Kirikos:e.g. all the character swapping rules, dropping letters,
adding letters --- many, many false positives.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):without the assesment we can not move further with
the non-exact match idea
Michael R Graham:Question for me is whether we gain/lose more by moving
ahead without empirical information to inform our answers/actions or waiting
for that evidence?
Michael R Graham:@Maxim -- I agree, depending on answer to my prior
question.
George Kirikos:Once we get the top 500 terms, we can run a simulation even
on a subset of the TMCH data.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , we need to be sure that this small sample
similar to other samples
Jeff Neuman:Feasibility from the TMCH point of view, Registry point of
view, Registrar point of view, all of the above?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so it is beter to test on the full historical set of
data
Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg. Any kind of agnostic, objective modelling
that we can start now would help in parallel to looking at other questions
George Kirikos:@Maxim: I agree. Just saying that if it failed on a small
subset, it is clear one wouldn't need to redo it at scale for the entire
dataset.
Scott Austin:Is there an existing search model or algorithim used by
search firms or USPTO that would be a useful analog
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, I think we need to have objective assesment
to avoid speculations
Greg Shatan:Jeff, does there need to be a point of view? I think it
should be objective.
David McAuley:Good points Kristine - and we need to prepare to be crisp in
our requests so that we don't launch unnecessary work
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also it needs a rule of combination (how to combine
rules, how many times, in which order e.t.c)
George Kirikos:e.g. applying some of the rules to marks like "THE", it
would create a warning for "TH", "HE", "TE", etc. just on one rule (dropping
a letter).
David McAuley:good points Mary
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, unfortunately the longer the string the
worse the situation
Amr Elsadr:Note that financial and technical considerations were already
recorded prior to ICANN 59.
George Kirikos:@Maxim: yes, but at some point, the "density" of
surrounding terms drops, when it's a very long term. So, while there's an
expansion, the "collisions" won't change much.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Could we simply add "non-exac match claims" need
assesment prior to implementation ?
Terri Agnew:finding the line
George Kirikos:Post-registration vs. pre-registration notices.
Paul McGrady:+1 Susan
Michael R Graham:I would object to the question -- it is really a
subquestion to whether the Claims Notice is having its desired effect it
seems.
Jeff Neuman:Pre-registration vs. post registration is an implementation of
a potential solution after a problem is identified
Jonathan Frost:From a registry persperspective, that flexibility in notice
delivery method would reduce the implementation burden substantially.
Jeff Neuman:If there are problems identified with pre-registration, then
post-registration claims may be a potential solution...but we should not
address until pre-registration is shown as the problem
Michael R Graham:Benefit of early notice is to prevent outlay of moneys by
applicant to develop a site, plan, etc. when the domain name on which it may
depend is problemmatic.
Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- +1 if it is included.
Susan Payne:yes, much better suggestion Kristine
Kathy Kleiman:Good idea, Kristine.
Paul Tattersfield:timing and presentation
David McAuley:good idea
Marie Pattullo:And from a brand holder perspective having to enforce ex
post rather than ex ante would increase the implementation burden
substantially... and not help good faith registrants.
Jeff Neuman:Sorry, what is question again
George Kirikos:Brandholders already enforce ex post, though, once the 90
days elapses (i.e. once the claims period ends).
Marie Pattullo:Only if the registration goes through, George.
Griffin Barnett:Completely agree with Brian Beckham
Susan Payne:yes that was my point (badly expressed) Brian
Jonathan Frost:Part of the purpose of the claims notice is to provide
notice for the purpose of future URS/UDRP litigation, which a flexible
delivery method could still accomplish.
Jeff Neuman:I agree with Brian on this. We are openinig the door to
things like, should we have a formal opposition period for trademark owners
Jeff Neuman:PRIOR to registration
Jeff Neuman:Post-registration claims is a very different RPM than a
pre-registration claims service
Jon Nevett:It's a reasonable question -- we should have it wherever
Kristine and staff think it should go
Marie Pattullo:Agree with Jeff & Brian.
Jeff Neuman:Volker did present the idea, and registrars are discussing.
But it is not because of abandonment
Philip Corwin:I believe that the timing of the notices, and who they go
to, becomes quite relevant if we add non-exact matches as triggers for a
notice to either the registramnt or the mark holder.
Jeff Neuman:it is because of ease of implementation
George Kirikos:A "quasi" post registration could work, i.e. put the
registration into a "pending registration" (not actually processed) by that
registrar, and then send the notice by email, and then formally register
later.
Jeff Neuman:and because of getting more registrars signed up
Susan Payne:we have a lot of work to identify problems if any, and address
them not to "look at the existing problems"
Michael R Graham:Thanks, Kristine!
George Kirikos:So, it could be done under the existing rules (at the risk
of not registering the domain name immediately, and having someone else
swoop in and register it).
Jon Nevett:we shouldn't debate the substance of the change now -- we are
just asking a question that is well within our charter
Jeff Neuman:The issues then with post registration involves refunds,
dealing with premium names and post registration claims, customer support,
etc.
David McAuley:+1 Michael, well managed Kristine
Marie Pattullo:It's also fairness to a good faith regsitrant who thinks
he's good to go only to get such a notice after he starts putting his DN
into his marketing materials etc.
Michael R Graham:+1 Marie -- well put
George Kirikos:BTW, are we sticking to the 1 pm (Eastern time) starting
times now, i.e. followup to Mary's email?
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002211.html
George Kirikos:Oops, I guess that's agenda item 5.
Michael R Graham:@JScott -- Agree. Subteams useful with data plans,
collection and perhaps initial review.
Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves
George Kirikos:Vote early, and vote often.... ? :-)
Michael R Graham:@Mary -- were these results also distributed so we can
review at leisure?
Michael R Graham:@George -- You from Chicago? ;-)
J. Scott:Yes Michael. about 2 days ago the results were sent around to the
WG
George Kirikos:lol No.....from Toronto. :-)
Michael R Graham:Thanks -- wonders of the Spam filter.
George Kirikos:These surveys weren't meant to be determinitive of the
outcome, though --- just a "lay of the land"??
Mary Wong:@George, that's right - and that's why the comments are probably
as important, if not more so, as the actual numbers/percentages.
Jeff Neuman:For question 3, of the "Yes" vs "No", what is the breakdown
between groups
David McAuley:Agree with Mary inasmuch as the lay of the land on @3 is
pretty even split
David McAuley:Q3, that is
Jeff Neuman:in otherwords, did all IP owners say yes, but academics say no
Cyntia King:Good question, Jeff
Rebecca L Tushnet:It was my understanding that we got so many different
questions because of sentiment that there were different kinds of stylized
marks possibly meriting different treatment. Though I disagreed,about
"meriting different treatment" I though the quiz did distinguish between
types of marks, especially with the examples.
George Kirikos:@Jeff: right, it'd be interesting to see each individual
response (not aggregated/anonymized).
Mary Wong:@Rebecca, thanks - that was the idea.
Rebecca L Tushnet:Ooh, are there more academics on here?
Kathy Kleiman:Do we have a category for academics?
Michael R Graham:Agree further breakdowns would be useful to understand.l
George Kirikos:Some were disputing that the they were "scholars" (i.e. the
EFF letter). :-)
Kathy Kleiman:got it, tx Jeff
George Kirikos:Astroturfing is a serious charge.
Susan Payne:i dont even know whatthat means!
George Kirikos:Everyone attached a name to the survey.
George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Jeff Neuman:I went back up....sorry
Greg Shatan:I followed Jeff....
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):does it mean they were confused?
Susan Payne:accidental hand
Jeff Neuman:i think it would make a differencce, yes
Kathy Kleiman:We also had "other"
George Kirikos:Comment #1 didn't make sense -- there's no requirement of 3
characters minimum.
George Kirikos:(i.e. 2 letters and 1 letter domains have been released in
new gTLDs, and exist in legacy ones too, e.g. Elon Musk now owns X.com)
Paul Tattersfield:perhaps it's a suggestion for a new rule George
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):lots of 2 char TMs
George Kirikos:Right, all the text.
George Kirikos:Distinguishes this question from Q4.
Greg Shatan:It might be a red herring. If no one thought this was about
partial disclaimers, then we're good. Frankly I agree that it's clear. So
it's incumbent on those who thought this refers to partial disclaimers to
say so.
Kathy Kleiman:+1 J. Scott
Greg Shatan:I will note that my concerns. with the validity and design of
the survey were expressed before knowing any of the results....
Lori Schulman:Agree with J Scott. We are trying to find a way toward
consensus. That is the role of the chairs to moderate and find ways toward
concensus.
Lori Schulman:Taking the pulse helps do that.
George Kirikos:@Greg: I too suggested that the questions be circulated
beforehand.....but since the results are not binding, i.e. just a 'lay of
the land', don't give too much weight one way or the other.
George Kirikos:I see this just as a tool to shift the discussion from the
mailing list, where it might have been somewhat disorganized, into a
structured response system.
George Kirikos:I see my comment (#15) in that list. Makes little
difference, if sunrise is eliminated.
Paul Tattersfield:Could just add some new columns into the all the
headings Answer Choice -- Responses -- IP -- Registars --
Individuals -- Totals
George Kirikos:Supplemental registered marks haven't yet made it to the
principal, that's why.
George Kirikos:They're capable of "graduating" to the principal register,
but while they're still in the supplemental register, they're relatively
worthless.
Paul Tattersfield:marks with registration numbers which start 89 ?
Scott Austin:they bear a registration notice yet are treated as
unregistered, and may have spent millions in advertising but not yet enough
for 2f status v a foreign mark THE that is registered without use and
appears on the TMCH as registered
David McAuley:Thanks Mary - very nice presentation
David McAuley:and I agree the comments were quite informative
Paul Tattersfield:Yes thanks Mary helpful presentation
Paul McGrady:+1 J Scott.
George Kirikos:Don't shunt it to a separate PDP, though. We should dispose
of the issue here (otherwise it lingers around forever).
George Kirikos:i.e.a firm "yes" or "no", instead of leaving it undead,
i.e. a zombie issue.
Paul Tattersfield:6 ter listing
Paul McGrady:@George, there is no way to keep someone from going to
Council seeking another PDP on this topic alone. Whether or not Council
will take it up is a seperate question.
Paul Tattersfield:The GAC won't be very pleased lol
Philip Corwin:Agree that we need to find a common understanding of what
marks protected by statute or treaty means.
George Kirikos:@Paul: the GAC should get used to not being pleased, e.g.
.AMAZON. :-)
Rebecca L Tushnet:That works fine for me--I would just like to have some
discussion about what that means.
Paul McGrady:+1 J Scott. A good plan
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I agree
George Kirikos:One general question I had --- we have 165 "participants"
in the group, according to
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag
es_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729950
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa
ges_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729950&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk
bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JK
LCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=VetXH-VRfkdogV5RHRAiCxFxvfVvZE8t8CK63kS
k4rk&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=Ve
tXH-VRfkdogV5RHRAiCxFxvfVvZE8t8CK63kSk4rk&e=
George Kirikos:yet only a small minority answered the survey. Why such
limited participation?
Paul McGrady:6 minutes - use it wisely
George Kirikos:Are we on the 1 pm Eastern time from now on?
Lori Schulman:6 mins. woohoo!
Kathy Kleiman:@ George, we still have the late night call once a month
George Kirikos:True, Kathy.
George Kirikos:As long as it doesn't conflict with Game of Thrones, I'm
good. :-)
Philip Corwin:Our task is not to please or displease the GAC, but to
provide well considered answers to properly framed questions
George Kirikos:(the only show I have to watch live)
Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs)
in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at
17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.
Paul McGrady:@George - ha! Can't miss GOT
Lori Schulman:ciao
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Susan Payne:bye all
Paul Tattersfield:bye all
J. Scott:ciao, ciao
khouloud dawahi:bye
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170719/0ce8e7ba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member 19 July 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 336326 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170719/0ce8e7ba/attendanceRPMMember19July2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170719/0ce8e7ba/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list