[gnso-rpm-wg] FW: TMCH data on abandonment
Kiran Malancharuvil
Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
Mon Jun 12 15:08:50 UTC 2017
+1
Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 5:45 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
>
> + 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!
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list