[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed May 9 15:59:56 UTC 2018


Excellent response. Thank you.

From:  gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang
<ariel.liang at icann.org>
Date:  Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM
To:  "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
Working Group Co-Chair

> Dear all,
>  
> As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub
> Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email,
> staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian¹s suggestion was a
> follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working
> Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email).
>  
> Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team
> and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by
> the Sub Team. 
>  
> Best regards,
> Mary, Julie & Ariel
>  
> -----
>  
> Hi Michael and everyone,
>  
> Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should
> point out that Brian¹s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and
> Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most
> recently on 26 April. Brian¹s question to staff this morning was to ask if and
> how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering
> the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
>  
> We hope this clarifies the timing.
>  
> Cheers
> Mary & Ariel
>  
>  
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating
> <Paul at law.es>
> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM
> To: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>, Michael
> Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working
> Group Co-Chair
> 
>  
> 
> Georges,
> 
>  
> 
> I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the
> subgroup?  In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to
> directly email the subgroup.  That is how my ³agitating² question came up.
> 
>  
> 
> My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the
> subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a
> modified form that met with subgroup member consensus.
> 
>  
> 
> If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff
> without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should
> address because IMO it deals with transparency.
> 
>  
> 
> Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
>  
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Georges
> Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM
> To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working
> Group Co-Chair
> 
>  
>> 
>> Michael;
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the
>> practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side.  We had a
>> whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that
>> created much agitation  You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails
>> supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming
>> up with a set of questions   The practitioner group ultimately dealt with
>> this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution.  It sounds
>> like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard.
>> 
>>  
>> From:mkaranicolas at gmail.com
>> Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM
>> To:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> Cc:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working
>> Group Co-Chair
>>  
>> 
>> Hi all, 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose
>> his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and
>> important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the
>> providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward.
>> For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at
>> issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open
>> it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and
>> late inputs - which we can have another time.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions
>> about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when
>> the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate
>> compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the
>> last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which
>> requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises
>> some concerns.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I have three questions for Brian:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as
>> opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is
>> generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to
>> documents drafted by consensus?
>> 
>> 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the
>> Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not?
>> 
>> 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what
>> happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as
>> chair?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -------
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 ­ we
>> understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this
>> question, which states:
>>  
>> ³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a
>> diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing
>> Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.²
>>  
>> Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
>>  
>> ³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have
>> demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a
>> diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?²
>>  
>> His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require
>> ³demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law², which may
>> mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent
>> parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to
>> the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while
>> broadening it to ³parties in² domain name cases (for which representing
>> complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
>>  
>> Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please
>> be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the
>> revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many
>> apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are
>> based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute
>> inquiry.
>>  
>> Thank you,
>> Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Brian, 
>>> 
>>> I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or
>>> character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit
>>> of the election itself:
>>> 
>>> I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that¹s fine towards
>>> WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better
>>> whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
>>> 
>>> 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
>>> 
>>> 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer,
>>> WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might
>>> affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do
>>> you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is
>>> the leading provider?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging
>>> role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such
>>> sensitive roles.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best of all,
>>> 
>>> Martín Silva
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dear WG members,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by
>>>> Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been
>>>> vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey
>>>> the following for your consideration:
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which
>>>> is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself
>>>> privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends,
>>>> and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy
>>>> discussions.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job
>>>> requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR,
>>>> administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN
>>>> multistakeholder processes on a number of files.  Particularly in assisting
>>>> on a ³Specification 13² to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately
>>>> previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication,
>>>> understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups.  Each of
>>>> these represent forms of consensus building.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission
>>>> at WIPO;  I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a
>>>> decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds,
>>>> nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints.   In my private
>>>> practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly
>>>> non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to
>>>> global.  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I participated in a few prior ICANN ³working groups² and also in many more
>>>> policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook
>>>> iterations).  I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and
>>>> as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless
>>>> ³eUDRP² that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention
>>>> environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN
>>>> community, but all DNS stakeholders ­ to bring balance and to assist in
>>>> trust of the DNS.  I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Brian
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM
>>>> To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> ; mcgradygnso at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
>>>> Working Group Co-Chair
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Phil, all,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence.  I am sorry I haven¹t
>>>> been able reply earlier.  I am in principle willing and able to assist
>>>> here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal
>>>> discussions/clearances.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to
>>>> confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams
>>>> this week, I hope is OK.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> For now, best regards,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Brian
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM
>>>> To: julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> ;
>>>> mcgradygnso at gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
>>>> Working Group Co-Chair
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Paul.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to
>>>> know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that
>>>> soon.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Best, Philip
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Philip S. Corwin
>>>> 
>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>> 
>>>> VeriSign, Inc.
>>>> 
>>>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>> 
>>>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>>>> 
>>>> 571-342-7489/Cell
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM
>>>> To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso at gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com> >
>>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations
>>>> for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you Paul and noted.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Julie
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso at gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com> >
>>>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM
>>>> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>> >
>>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
>>>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working
>>>> Group Co-Chair
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you Julie.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO.  Although I believe WIPO sits with the
>>>> GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the
>>>> requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> > wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Working Group members,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings
>>>>> at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking
>>>>> nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the
>>>>> administration of the WG¹s large and complex agenda and encourage members
>>>>> to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone
>>>>> else. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the
>>>>> relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working
>>>>> Group leaders are selected.  Note that holding an election is not
>>>>> mandatory.  It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it
>>>>> wishes to appoint an additional Chair.  In addition, although (as noted
>>>>> below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent
>>>>> agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional
>>>>> chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund
>>>>> <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
>>>>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM
>>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Working Group members,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip,
>>>>> Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has
>>>>> decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March.  We are all very
>>>>> grateful for J. Scott¹s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this
>>>>> Working Group since its inception.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the
>>>>> importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist
>>>>> in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage
>>>>> members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating
>>>>> someone else.  We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could
>>>>> reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at
>>>>> ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent
>>>>> survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member
>>>>> participation.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO
>>>>> Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected.  Note
>>>>> that holding an election is not mandatory.  It is up to the Working Group
>>>>> to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair.  In
>>>>> addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the
>>>>> appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group
>>>>> agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim
>>>>> appointee.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pd
>>>>> f[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_co
>>>>> uncil_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY
>>>>> 1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5
>>>>> ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUP
>>>>> EiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=>
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2.1.4.2   Election of the WG Leaders
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization,
>>>>> normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until
>>>>> that time, the Chartering Organization¹s liaison may fulfill the role of
>>>>> interim Chair.  A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and
>>>>> Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be
>>>>> requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such
>>>>> time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will
>>>>> need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO).  The newly
>>>>> elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering
>>>>> Organization has confirmed the appointment.  If there are any objections
>>>>> to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether
>>>>> there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting
>>>>> procedures of the CO.  If not, the Working Group will be requested to
>>>>> reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new
>>>>> proposal.  In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by
>>>>> the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG
>>>>> must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
>>>>> 
>>>>> € Nominations or self-nominations;
>>>>> 
>>>>> € Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the
>>>>> qualifications, qualities and
>>>>> 
>>>>> experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
>>>>> 
>>>>> € Vote by simple majority;
>>>>> 
>>>>> € Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering
>>>>> Organization of results of
>>>>> 
>>>>> actions².
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
>>>> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
>>>> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
>>>> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
>>>> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
>>>> prior to opening or using.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> 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, 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180509/21236926/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list