[GNSO-RPM-WG] Updated Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams Including Submission of Additional Data
George Kirikos
icann at leap.com
Fri Feb 1 17:00:05 UTC 2019
P.S. In case I wasn't specific enough, the current timeline (PDF from
the first post of this thread) says that "additional data" will be
considered by the sub teams only on February 13, 2019 "if any is
submitted.*
There is nothing at all about ICANN Staff collecting any more data,
and it's implicit that no other data exists (not counting the 12
documents, the so-called "previously collected data", the sub teams
were given that we're currently working on, none of which includes
anything from those August 2017 sources) anywhere in the timeline
(going up to December 2019!).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:40 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Mary:
>
> It would have been more productive to simply send us what work ICANN
> staff has already done, if it even exists. Why not send that along, if
> it exists? Today's email instead seem like a distraction, to attempt
> get away from the fact that the work from August 2017 hasn't been
> done. Instead working group members are being asked to step up and do
> something instead.
>
> 1. to say that the current "ask" is more narrow is to say it's been
> decided (by who?) that we as a PDP want **less** data (especially less
> data that will challenge the status quo, and that will reveal flaws in
> TMCH and Sunrise, and which doesn't overlap with other data we already
> have), I never agreed to that. Folks wanted all that data, otherwise
> those sources wouldn't have been sent along in August 2017. The ask is
> allegedly now "narrow" only because staff failed to do what was asked
> in August 2017, and due to that, there's now less time and resources
> available to do what should have already been done.
>
> In other words, folks are trying to "cushion" the latest request, to
> lower expectations, expecting now that less data will actually be
> delivered (given the constraints that now exist), and then be able to
> declare "success" against that lower standard.
>
> 2. you talk about data that is "not yet known" to the working group. I
> see only 12 documents in the sub teams that we're reviewing currently,
> and none of it was from the lists of blogs, etc. that were mentioned
> in August 2017. Where are those, or are they still considered
> "unknown" because ICANN staff didn't do what was asked?
>
> 3. The original suggestions were made *early on* as you say *in order
> that ICANN staff could do the work*!!! That was a *feature* not a bug.
> Your work was to be done in *parallel* to the surveys, and wasn't in
> any way *blocked* by what the Analysis Group conducted. When was it
> decided to abandon the effort? (give a specific date, and link to a
> mailing list post please, as a citation). We have the email from you
> and other staff on January 9, responding to Michael K:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
>
> saying " However, we very quickly found that the type and volume of
> the results would mean that a great deal of time and effort would be
> needed to compile the full lists and categorize them as an initial
> matter."
>
> Yes, and you were given ample time!
>
> Going on, it was written:
>
> "staff has not proceeded further with the research – pending more
> specific direction from the Working Group once analysis of the Sunrise
> and Claims survey data as well as the data already available is
> complete, such that the utility of such a wide-ranging and undefined
> search can be clearer."
>
> When exactly is that "direction" to be provided, given that there are
> no working group calls scheduled until *after* the deadline next week
> for submission of the "data sources"?? You should have *already*
> sought "direction" immediately after you decided not to proceed
> further with the research (presumably in 2017). Show me how this
> research by staff will ever be incorporated into the timeline that's
> been established (it seems only the documents provided by next week
> will).
>
> 4. I don't know how to spell it out more clearly on how to do this.
> You go to Google, you do a search for:
>
> site:thedomains.com "sunrise"
> site:thedomains.com "tmch"
> site:thedomains.com "clearinghouse"
> site:thedomains.com "gaming"
>
> and then you repeat that with other relevant keywords, for all the
> other blogs/sources. That's what I did, as a start. Or you go to each
> site and use their built-in site search. And then you scan the
> results, and look for relevant articles and their comments. (lots of
> false positives, but gems too as I posted yesterday)
>
> But, feel free to pass along what you've already
> researched/compiled/found. If it takes more than 30 minutes from the
> time of this email to send along those already compiled
> articles/posts, I'll just assume that it was research started today
> (using the tips above on how to do it), rather than in August 2017.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:57 AM Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> >
> > Dear George and everyone,
> >
> >
> >
> > Staff begs your indulgence as we believe we need to respond to George's continued allegation that ICANN staff is asking Working Group members to do the work that had originally been suggested be done by staff. As we have endeavored to explain on the mailing list and on the Sub Team calls, the current "ask" from the Working Group leadership team is not that Working Group members should perform the same broad research that was originally suggested. Rather, the proposal is a much more specific and narrow one: viz., that Working Group members who already have knowledge of additional data sources not yet known to the Working Group should provide that information now. This will ensure that relevant data is brought to the Working Group's attention as well as allow the Working Group to leverage the expertise and knowledge present amongst our membership.
> >
> >
> >
> > Staff has also tried to clarify that, because the original research suggestions were made early on in the PDP deliberations and before the detailed data request for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys was developed, it may be more productive at this stage of the PDP to narrow any additional research that the Working Group believes is needed to filling gaps for which the data amassed to date do not provide useful information. As noted previously, the original research suggestions were fairly broad and would have required the Working Group to analyze any and all materials gathered through that broad search, without any initial winnowing or preliminary analysis by staff.
> >
> >
> >
> > At no point in the process did staff intimate that the research would have been “too hard”; we simply reported our view that the breadth of the original suggestion meant that a substantial amount of time and effort would have been expended on an extremely wide-ranging and vaguely-defined search in order to compile a list of sources (in many cases anecdotal) that would then have required additional Working Group effort to review and analyze. In view of the Working Group agreement to conduct professional surveys for Sunrise and Trademark Claims, it therefore seemed prudent to first see the results of those surveys and then take stock of what else might be necessary and useful.
> >
> >
> >
> > We trust that this explanatory note is clear.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Julie, Ariel & Mary
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/1/19, 21:32, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Brian,
> >
> >
> >
> > That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that
> >
> > matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having
> >
> > been circulated for the URS?
> >
> >
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can
> >
> > remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual
> >
> > proposals, see:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
> >
> >
> >
> > But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****,
> >
> > that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different.
> >
> > i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
> >
> >
> >
> > and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had
> >
> > ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have
> >
> > had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this
> >
> > in early January 2019:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
> >
> >
> >
> > And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to
> >
> > create a process:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
> >
> >
> >
> > (i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9,
> >
> > although it had been raised previously)
> >
> >
> >
> > That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what
> >
> > ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than
> >
> > they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly
> >
> > ridiculous.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group
> >
> > meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
> >
> >
> >
> > " * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
> >
> >
> >
> > How convenient.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd
> >
> > already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that
> >
> > working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did
> >
> > absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too
> >
> > hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.")
> >
> > Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people
> >
> > listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When
> >
> > working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic
> >
> > timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized,
> >
> > or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what
> >
> > others must endure.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration
> >
> > laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an
> >
> > apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce
> >
> > barriers to participation and trying to
> >
> > have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply
> >
> > create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are
> >
> > erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e.
> >
> > the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was
> >
> > identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep
> >
> > flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix
> >
> > them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources
> >
> > (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub
> >
> > teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for
> >
> > the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according
> >
> > to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered
> >
> > until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until
> >
> > April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to
> >
> > discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the
> >
> > procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual
> >
> > proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams
> >
> > had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of
> >
> > expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over
> >
> > individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for
> >
> > public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader
> >
> > community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC
> >
> > has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour
> >
> > of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the
> >
> > perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of
> >
> > the subteams and/or the working group.
> >
> >
> >
> > When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced
> >
> > representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the
> >
> > current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub
> >
> > team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also
> >
> > becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
> >
> >
> >
> > The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower
> >
> > barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can
> >
> > weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference,
> >
> > especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely
> >
> > would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
> >
> >
> >
> > Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working
> >
> > group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions,
> >
> > I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I
> >
> > foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to
> >
> > demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not
> >
> > appear to be taken seriously.
> >
> >
> >
> > John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a
> >
> > professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the
> >
> > co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the
> >
> > outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be
> >
> > revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction
> >
> > that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive
> >
> > travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3
> >
> > ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a
> >
> > professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry,
> >
> > who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I
> >
> > think that would likely have no financial impact.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> > George Kirikos
> >
> > 416-588-0269
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=HicDYVdLs_izazF_hGvJYj8uFGNFu65nU1bkuC5icUs&e=
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing
> >
> > > list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated
> >
> > > previously for the URS?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Sincerely,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > George Kirikos
> >
> > > 416-588-0269
> >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=HicDYVdLs_izazF_hGvJYj8uFGNFu65nU1bkuC5icUs&e=
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Brian
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of
> >
> > > > research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to
> >
> > > > the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why
> >
> > > > wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP,
> >
> > > > to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve
> >
> > > > balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_16492-2Dhow-2Done-2Dguy-2Dgames-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsunrise-2Dperiods&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=Q4LuF5DMkHF4iUrTqYe2oFI0mbzPBQ62yuv9X4PiQPA&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onlinedomain.com_2014_04_15_legal_fake-2Dtrademarks-2Dstealing-2Dgeneric-2Ddomains-2Din-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsunrises_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=uPorEoSyRmntZ4ZFJcSS_W7ZE-CYS4sLeAYACRHkOQ4&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2017_02_01_the-2Dtrademark-2Dclearinghouse-2Dworked-2Dso-2Dwell-2Done-2Dcompany-2Dgot-2D24-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dusing-2Dthe-2Dfamous-2Dtrademark-2Dthe_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=DmqqES1Q2I7eavpCma560M7ZHVFjI5rDyU0xqtcjv0U&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2015_03_12_is-2Dthe-2Dtrademark-2Dclearinghouse-2Dcausing-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2Dto-2Dlose-2D6x-2Dthe-2Dnumber-2Dof-2Dregistrations_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=15Sfr-zKwxluaBqXk926VamAnc7aCl56_zfVufPq8d0&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetcommerce.org_tmchnew-2Dgtld-2Dregistrations_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=pp21baJ3ljfxHjvvNjmQLJyj_HAhghn_zAv3f8UA8mA&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014_02_10_how-2Dcommon-2Dwords-2Dlike-2Dpizza-2Dmoney-2Dand-2Dshopping-2Dended-2Dup-2Din-2Dthe-2Dtrademark-2Dclearinghouse-2Dfor-2Dnew-2Dtlds_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=JWvGSidTe9IJZFS2n4La9f4r4YC3BrdAHdU30IkpuUg&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014_01_31_donuts-2Dsunrise-2Ddata_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=EPi853c5T1dCOMtcfIhPOzGWFEp6duP23kHg-2ePFMg&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014_03_25_tmch-2Dbrag_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=lpbKYL8NFrLjwu0TsYMT0kMM5cNBWMMd-OcgukyCeI0&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014_01_30_the-2Dnumbers-2Dare-2Din-2Ddonuts-2Dsunrises-2Dtypically-2Dget-2D100-2Ddomains-2Dbut-2Dthey-2Dalso-2Dgot-2Dgamed_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=WuEo9AjIqkY-T2UfvTKP_v3H-u2h8WNGQGIeO8Nz0MM&e=
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes
> >
> > > > I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes
> >
> > > > and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing
> >
> > > > list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have
> >
> > > > compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet
> >
> > > > somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff
> >
> > > > should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so
> >
> > > > that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon
> >
> > > > what ICANN staff abandoned.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Sincerely,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > George Kirikos
> >
> > > > 416-588-0269
> >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=10_Ifv-GGOpx6g-poGDA5fuGGnrC6CG8Ttec8RoYOSc&s=HicDYVdLs_izazF_hGvJYj8uFGNFu65nU1bkuC5icUs&e=
> >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> >
> > > > GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> >
> > > > 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
> >
> >
More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG
mailing list