[gnso-rpm-wg] FW: TMCH data on abandonment

Marie Pattullo marie.pattullo at aim.be
Mon Jun 12 12:44:42 UTC 2017


+ 1. I thought that discussion was closed. 
Marie

Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos 

> On 12 Jun 2017, at 14:43, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> I do not nor will I ever support disclosure of the marks registered in the TMCH.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
>> 
>> "what we don't know probably exceeds what we do²
>> 
>> Could NOT agree more.
>> 
>> I suggest we focus on what information we need in order to properly
>> analyze and discuss the issue.  For this I see us in need of the following:
>> 
>> A listing of the marks in the TMCH
>> Information from registrars that may indicate abandonment in the context
>> of the claims notice process.   I cannot seriously believe that the
>> registrars do not have this data given its importance in the continued
>> process of refining the UI and maximizing revenues.  If it is an issue of
>> confidentiality, I am happy to limit the disclosure of the information to
>> Staff or if that is not acceptable then to a third party who can be
>> retained (and paid) to review and analyze the data for us.  Failing that
>> we could perhaps approach several of the larger registrars in this area
>> (new Gtld registrations) and ask that they run a test for a specified
>> period.   IF that results in a delay we can defer this issue until we have
>> the data.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> On 6/9/17, 6:22 PM, "Phil Corwin" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf
>> of psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> This thread has wound on quite a bit since Brian's original post, but
>>> since my name came up in his let me add a few thoughts.
>>> 
>>> Brian's email stated:
>>>> In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on
>>> Friday, 02
>>>>> June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on
>>> abandonment rates...
>>>> Phil Corwin     suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment
>>> rate was 80% then it may
>>>>> be reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material
>>> difference between
>>>>> those subject to claims notices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to
>>> obtain the desired
>>>>> data (a number of reasons, including competitive
>>> (dis-)advantages, were
>>>>> raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us
>>> that ³An average
>>>>> website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.²
>>> A second GoDaddy
>>>>> article suggests it is 67%.
>>> 
>>> I haven¹t reviewed the transcript of that call, but I just pulled the 80%
>>> number out of a hat and my intended point was that if there was just a
>>> small difference between abandonment rates of initiated domain
>>> registrations that did and did not generate claims notices then it might
>>> be reasonable to conclude that the received warning was having its
>>> intended targeted effect (deterring cybersquatting) and not causing
>>> significant abandonment of non-infringing domain registrations.
>>> 
>>> It appears that the GoDaddy cart abandonment statistics relate to general
>>> ecommerce websites and not specifically to registrar websites so it would
>>> be useful to get data from registrars as to what their general cart
>>> abandonment rate is. But if it is 68% for initiated domain registrations
>>> then the 94.7 abandonment rate measured by the Analysis group would be
>>> 39.2% higher and that would seem statistically significant and indicative
>>> that non-infringing registrations may be deterred. (Noting for the record
>>> that we don't know how many of the abandoned registrations measured by AG
>>> were never intended to go to completion but were initiated for other
>>> purposes -- and that of the abandoned attempts that were intended to be
>>> completed we have no way of knowing which were initiated by intentional
>>> cybersquatters and which came from innocent parties with no infringing
>>> intent and whose actual domain use would not have been infringing.)
>>> 
>>> We also don't know the effect of a claims warning receipt  on an
>>> intentional cybersquatters versus innocent would-be registrants. Just as
>>> warning signs of home security systems may not deter a professional
>>> burglar, intentional cybersquatters may know the risk of detection and
>>> factor it into their business model. On the other hand, outside the ICANN
>>> bubble, most would be domain registrants are unlikely to have a law
>>> degree and upon receiving a notice warning of potential legal
>>> consequences if they complete the transaction may decide they don't wish
>>> to expend half a month's grocery money to consult with a trademark
>>> attorney.
>>> 
>>> None of this is to say that the Claims Notice does not have merit or that
>>> we should not consider possible generation of notices, or at least notice
>>> to trademark holders of completed registrations, for some classes of
>>> non-exact matches. But it's clear that we also need more and better data
>>> because what we don't know probably exceeds what we do.
>>> 
>>> We should also be mindful that we must maintain a reasonable balance
>>> between the scope of this RPM and its impact on domain registrants with
>>> no infringing intent, especially if their actual use of the domain would
>>> be lawful. Let's take a pragmatic view and recognize that any
>>> policymaking exercise is not an academic but an inherently political
>>> process and that "politics is the art of compromise". Also, as contracted
>>> parties in the business of creating and selling domains make up half the
>>> GNSO Council that must approve our final work product (lest all our work
>>> be for naught) that would suggest that our work should seek to assure
>>> that Claims Notices perform their intended effect of effectively
>>> deterring intended cybersquatting while minimizing the deterrence of
>>> legitimate domain registrations.
>>> 
>>> Best, Philip
>>> 
>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>> Suite 1050
>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>> 202-255-6172/Cell
>>> 
>>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>> 
>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via
>>> gnso-rpm-wg
>>> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:00 AM
>>> To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
>>> 
>>> Volker:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with
>>> what they call ³stickiness² of a registration process. Specifically, they
>>> are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process
>>> because the ³stickier² the process (the more steps need to complete
>>> registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence
>>> certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find
>>> difficult in selling our subscriptions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> J. Scott Evans
>>> 408.536.5336 (tel)
>>> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>>> Director, Trademarks
>>> 408.709.6162 (cell)
>>> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>>> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>> www.adobe.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Volker
>>> Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this
>>>  notice seperate from the purchase process.
>>> 
>>>  Examples:
>>> 
>>>  1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be
>>>  presented at the time of purchase
>>> 
>>>  2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its
>>>  own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the
>>>  purchase process
>>> 
>>>  Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but
>>>  before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While
>>> we 
>>>  have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a
>>> significant 
>>>  drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a
>>> website 
>>>  where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of
>>>  mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the
>>>  site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the
>>> registration 
>>>  was smaller.
>>> 
>>>  Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed
>>> to 
>>>  be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many
>>>  industry sales channel.
>>> 
>>>  Best,
>>> 
>>>  Volker
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>  Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg:
>>>> Brain. Point taken. I don¹t mean to be flippant. That said, I am
>>> growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from
>>> behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My
>>> point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently
>>> for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate
>>> does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as
>>> intended.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> J. Scott Evans
>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel)
>>>> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>>>> Director, Trademarks
>>>> 408.709.6162 (cell)
>>>> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>>>> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>>>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>>> www.adobe.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic at pir.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims
>>> notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those
>>> with no intention to infringe?  I understand there is not direct evidence
>>> on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so"
>>> about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems
>>> unnecessarily flippant.
>>>> 
>>>>    Brian Cimbolic
>>>>    Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry
>>>>    Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871|
>>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C0
>>> 1%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1
>>> %7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata=h8qAN8le9SbhQvR0IawnyuRDu%2Fb1%2Bv2fpf
>>> bG6MNipug%3D&reserved=0 | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to Public
>>> Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
>>> delete.
>>>> 
>>>>    -----Original Message-----
>>>>    From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via
>>> gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>    Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM
>>>>    To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>;
>>> Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>>>>    Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>    Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
>>>>    Importance: High
>>>> 
>>>>    I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM
>>> Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that
>>> there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is
>>> working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high
>>> abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
>>>> 
>>>>    J. Scott
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    J. Scott Evans
>>>>    408.536.5336 (tel)
>>>>    345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>>>>    Director, Trademarks
>>>>    408.709.6162 (cell)
>>>>    San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>>>>    Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>>>>    jsevans at adobe.com
>>>>    www.adobe.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf
>>> of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>> Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>        I agree with Paul K.  Unfortunately, we need better
>>> information than
>>>>        that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the
>>> stage at
>>>>        which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned.
>>> It's my
>>>>        understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the
>>> notice
>>>>        wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at
>>> checkout.
>>>> 
>>>>        If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our
>>> only
>>>>        recommendation must be to get the data.
>>>>        Rebecca Tushnet
>>>>        Georgetown Law
>>>>        703 593 6759
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian
>>> <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I¹m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the
>>> sub-group, of which I am
>>>>> not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it
>>> is offered merely to
>>>>> help fill out some of the questions/discussion around
>>> seeking various
>>>>> TMCH/Claims-related data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims
>>> call on Friday, 02
>>>>> June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on
>>> abandonment rates.  In
>>>>> summary:  Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful
>>> to compare
>>>>> non-TMCH-related abandonment vs ³regular² abandonment.
>>> Jeff Neuman recalled
>>>>> that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment.
>>> Phil Corwin
>>>>> suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate
>>> was 80% then it may
>>>>> be reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material
>>> difference between
>>>>> those subject to claims notices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to
>>> obtain the desired
>>>>> data (a number of reasons, including competitive
>>> (dis-)advantages, were
>>>>> raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us
>>> that ³An average
>>>>> website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.²
>>> A second GoDaddy
>>>>> article suggests it is 67%.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> See
>>>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godad
>>> dy.com%2Fgarage%2Fsmallbusiness%2Fmarket%2Feffective-strategies-to-boost-a
>>> bandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0
>>> 017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971
>>> 754867&sdata=PtxSnnbDMNsumNMyaHdzoZZY0jowSqg1LeeFXqplKq4%3D&reserved=0
>>>>> and
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godad
>>> dy.com%2Fgarage%2Findustry%2Fretail%2Fecommerce%2Fwant-to-to-increase-sale
>>> s-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c001
>>> 7d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63632614597175
>>> 4867&sdata=aOJ1E7T6ITmYfP4bMNsvQ7dJAj3QrswMl4YK42BQp6c%3D&reserved=0.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are many articles on this topic with varying
>>> figures, but they tended
>>>>> to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here
>>> in the WG, while
>>>>> different/higher, are arguably not materially different
>>> than e-commerce
>>>>> statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by
>>> Phil Corwin as
>>>>> signaling ³a significant difference in the completion of
>>> registration.²).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is important here to recall too that many members of
>>> the WG have noted
>>>>> that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars,
>>> and registrants may
>>>>> have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing
>>> the data upwards.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution
>>> Section | WIPO Arbitration
>>>>> and Mediation Center
>>>>> 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland |
>>> T +4122 338 8247 |
>>>>> E brian.beckham at wipo.int |
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C
>>> 01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee
>>> 1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=lenvIEKAPus7F2zCjYUJaxaYKhFe8%2B8rBpf
>>> ZriFt75Y%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%7C5323a61f9cb343c00
>>> 17d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261459717
>>> 54867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%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%7C5323a61f9cb343c00
>>> 17d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261459717
>>> 54867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%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%7C01683e8ee1db418bc
>>> 47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261508691
>>> 81271&sdata=ma0nDH%2FEJQFyw1WraCvCRa7PfRNCUnmMJvZhZGoIKMk%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%7C0810a866745c4ea05
>>> a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261672996
>>> 36350&sdata=4A94L2iwoH4V%2B4AxZA%2B3CHNCYXxC2CBQEtDmlr8O7rc%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  -- 
>>>  Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>>> 
>>>  Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>> 
>>>  Volker A. Greimann
>>>  - Rechtsabteilung -
>>> 
>>>  Key-Systems GmbH
>>>  Im Oberen Werk 1
>>>  66386 St. Ingbert
>>>  Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>>>  Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>>>  Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>> 
>>>  Web: 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&dat
>>> a=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
>>> 78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=O7GYi6gY6APoVPhRT4hwqA5bYqrcJF
>>> cjKFIPndRvG5s%3D&reserved=0 /
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=0
>>> 2%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178d
>>> ecee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=IlooHlulVb9zrLGZNpG5QoKOEBZnxEzhh
>>> TnKAAp9IOg%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.co
>>> m&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a
>>> ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=XEmSKo62nO3XoTmDdA0%2FzjG
>>> yP0JzWmK8BJmWy17uVoE%3D&reserved=0 /
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&da
>>> ta=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c
>>> 178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=2bbhuhwhf2XotsRuCZUPyz9K9gXXM
>>> LTFurT83TZXiug%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeyS
>>> ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>>> 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=7jTA8d6MzALwTq10Bfly
>>> 8Wnn%2FYyIH%2BMrEcTbabYX4S4%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_s
>>> ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>>> 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX
>>> 4TmzqRabJQNcQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>>  Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>>  Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>> 
>>>  Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02
>>> %7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVL
>>> wMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
>>> angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
>>> Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
>>> unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten
>>> wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>> 
>>>  --------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>>  Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
>>> contact us.
>>> 
>>>  Best regards,
>>> 
>>>  Volker A. Greimann
>>>  - legal department -
>>> 
>>>  Key-Systems GmbH
>>>  Im Oberen Werk 1
>>>  66386 St. Ingbert
>>>  Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>>>  Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>>>  Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>> 
>>>  Web: 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&dat
>>> a=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
>>> 78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=lzBW0gmVS%2B2UiQP%2F5JbtAH0kYu
>>> ORcuSconBPi71nSXc%3D&reserved=0 /
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=0
>>> 2%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178d
>>> ecee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=h%2FZhphjPah4DyM%2FwgLEclR3CwJSHq
>>> ir1%2BwgU2iY6zoo%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.co
>>> m&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a
>>> ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=sQ08paL2jRlhPaKbLexcKYaUs
>>> rq%2FN%2FZYvIWh2t8ijso%3D&reserved=0 /
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&da
>>> ta=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c
>>> 178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=G%2BqbUbYGk%2Bq%2FP5bxZ52Td97
>>> g8ohhviWTKMc68ParqJg%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
>>> updated:
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeyS
>>> ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>>> 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=hnOE%2FO0fDsYe6Hl5ai
>>> 4pKcmbZ0IqvL%2BywEMsM6lNeAU%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_s
>>> ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>>> 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX
>>> 4TmzqRabJQNcQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>>>  Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>>  V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>> 
>>>  Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>> 
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02
>>> %7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVL
>>> wMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0
>>> 
>>>  This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
>>> whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
>>> content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
>>> this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
>>> e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
>>> us by telephone.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  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%7C0810a866745c4ea05
>>> a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261672996
>>> 46355&sdata=bwo8MiYipFMZb2OmjkIO00acK%2FnIxdmexwt%2BwHc8lkE%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%7C04499130488d4f5d328a08d4b18b1570%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328658301655555&sdata=QqBiLX26swKFFewRKI39uYO6pguYa%2BYAEpH%2FavY92fk%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%7C04499130488d4f5d328a08d4b18b1570%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328658301655555&sdata=QqBiLX26swKFFewRKI39uYO6pguYa%2BYAEpH%2FavY92fk%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%7C04499130488d4f5d328a08d4b18b1570%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328658301655555&sdata=QqBiLX26swKFFewRKI39uYO6pguYa%2BYAEpH%2FavY92fk%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> 
> !DSPAM:593e8c7d16851361214627!
> 
> 



More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list