<div>We need to agree on definitions of "abuse" or "gaming" before we "investigate" anything. </div><div><br></div><div>If "abuse" refers to an entity that is getting TM registrations solely to gain sunrise access, and not because they have an ongoing business providing goods or services using the brand, then I'm not sure what a list of marks alone would contribute.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, the idea that a list of marks alone would be helpful in finding "abuse" seems to point to a position that "abuse" relates to the word(s) in the mark, even though the mark is used in an ongoing business in connection with providing goods or services and the mark has a valid trademark registration.</div><div><br></div><div>There may be other proposed definitions besides the above. Let's focus on getting this out on the table so we can decide what constitutes "abuse"/"gaming".</div><div><br></div><div>Until we get clarity on this point, any discussion of investigation of "abuse" is premature.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:17 AM Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ok. I appreciate your response. I think it's very helpful to<br>
understand the concerns as clearly as possible, so I guess my question<br>
would be how sensitive that information is if we're talking about one<br>
brand SMEs. I can understand if we're talking about a major company<br>
with lots of different brands, looking at their prioritization would<br>
give an insight into their future strategies, but if there's only one<br>
brand, there's not much of a marketing insight you could get from<br>
seeing what they've taken, is there?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Marie Pattullo <<a href="mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be" target="_blank">marie.pattullo@aim.be</a>> wrote:<br>
> Thanks Michael - but that's not really a flyer for TMs that are easily recognisable (and thus attributable to an owner). Worse, what about the one-brand SME?<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Michael Karanicolas [mailto:<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com" target="_blank">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: jeudi 13 avril 2017 16:52<br>
> To: Marie Pattullo<br>
> Cc: Paul Keating; Brian Scarpelli; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today<br>
><br>
> Hi - I understand the objection. So what if the identity of the registering party was scrubbed from the data before it was delivered?<br>
> That way, readers wouldn't be able to tie the registrations to any broader brand strategy, because they wouldn't be able to develop a comprehensive list of brands registered by any particular party. All you would see is a list of what's been taken.<br>
><br>
> Would that resolve the concern about confidentiality?<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Marie Pattullo <<a href="mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be" target="_blank">marie.pattullo@aim.be</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Brand holders have repeatedly explained why the data in the TMCH is<br>
>> confidential, Paul. Access to that data won’t show you the “abuse” you<br>
>> believe you may find: it will simply show you a list of the marks that<br>
>> a brand owner has paid to record in the TMCH. Why do you want to know<br>
>> that, please? That list doesn’t show you any form of abusive, or<br>
>> benign, behaviour – it’s a list.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The (small) Sunrise take-up provides no evidence of mass abusive<br>
>> registration. So that leaves “abuse” in the Claims Notices, but those<br>
>> Notices don’t allow the TM owner to be abusive either – they’re just a<br>
>> heads up.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> So with respect, I simply don’t understand your repeated claims that<br>
>> you need access to this data to find “abuse”. In cases where there are<br>
>> questionable base marks, there are cancellation proceedings before IPOs.<br>
>> There are means to dispute a Sunrise allocation. Receiving a Claims<br>
>> Notice doesn’t stop you registering a DN. And taking a case in bad<br>
>> faith, or against bad faith, is always an option.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> It is of course your right to believe that you should have access to<br>
>> the commercial strategy of brand holders; you’ll forgive me for<br>
>> believing the contrary.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kind regards<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Marie<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>> On Behalf Of Paul Keating<br>
>> Sent: jeudi 13 avril 2017 16:22<br>
>> To: Brian Scarpelli<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the<br>
>> Working Group call held earlier today<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> George and Brian,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> You seem to have an agenda. And thou protest too much.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Our collective task is to investigate and make recommendations. It<br>
>> isn't possible to do either if denied access to I formation.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Regarding TMCH I only ask for a list of the mark's under registration.<br>
>> This is to see IF there has been abuse and IF SO then whether it<br>
>> reaches to the level of requiring corrective action.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am not certain if anything beyond the mark's is necessary.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I repeatedly hear that the TMCH is confidential. I have not seen<br>
>> anything to support such a claim. The terms provided by George showed<br>
>> no basis for a privacy expectation.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> If the list of the mark's in the TMCH database shows no abuse I will<br>
>> join the obvious majority to recommend no corrective action. For you<br>
>> surely cannot believe that this group would support changes in the<br>
>> absence of abuse.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Conversely if abuse is shown and the abuse is serious enough to<br>
>> warrant corrective action I trust you will join with me I crafting an<br>
>> appropriate solution.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> What is required is a list of marks and the basis for submission. I am<br>
>> not at all sure how the registrant ID would be relevant. Hence I have<br>
>> no understanding how it could be confidential. Thus I have no idea<br>
>> what you are trying so hard to hide. But will tell you that the harder<br>
>> you try the more I will be interested in investigating.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Whois is a completely separate issue with vastly different privacy concerns.<br>
>> I am happy to address the WHOIS and the TMCH issues within their<br>
>> respective WGs.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sincerely,<br>
>><br>
>> Paul Keating, Esq.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Brian Scarpelli<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:BScarpelli@actonline.org" target="_blank">BScarpelli@actonline.org</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> +1, I also agree.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Brian Scarpelli<br>
>> Senior Policy Counsel<br>
>> 517-507-1446 | <a href="mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org" target="_blank">bscarpelli@actonline.org</a> ACT | The App Association<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>> On Behalf Of Scott Austin<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:46 PM<br>
>> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>>; Paul Keating<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es" target="_blank">paul@law.es</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working<br>
>> Group call held earlier today<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> +1 Georges. Opacity, well put. Transparency as subterfuge, what a concept.<br>
>><br>
>> -------- Original Message --------<br>
>> From: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>><br>
>> Date: Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 8:08 AM<br>
>> To: Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es" target="_blank">paul@law.es</a>><br>
>> CC: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working<br>
>> Group call held earlier today<br>
>><br>
>> Actually it touches on the point here. If you are going to make various<br>
>> arguments of alleged abuse in support of claimed transparency, then it would<br>
>> it is relevant to know whether you are supporting a lack of transparency in<br>
>> the whois side of things where abuse has been rampant. While the TMCH and<br>
>> Whois are different animals a number of the arguments being made here to<br>
>> support transparency have actually been mirrored in the other context and<br>
>> rejected by those seeking opacity. And one major difference between the<br>
>> two situations is that there is widespread evidence of abuse of the whois<br>
>> system whereas here in the TMCH context you do not have evidence of a<br>
>> widespread abuse of the TMCH by brand owners. Nevertheless, you and others<br>
>> persist on wanting to conduct a fishing expedition under the guise of so<br>
>> called "transparency" to try and find some alleged widespread harm that<br>
>> simply does not exist. To many folks on the other side of the aisle, it<br>
>> appears that this is not about transparency but more about some effort to<br>
>> gut existing protections and to obtain the release of confidential<br>
>> information of brand owners as to what they did or did not register.<br>
>> Perhaps this may not be the intent, but we all know that once that<br>
>> information is out the gaming will really begin. Again, perhaps there are<br>
>> tweeks that could be made to improve the current system, but there is no<br>
>> real basis for undertaking the broad review that is being sought and<br>
>> certainly not for undoing the entire existing system.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>> Original Message<br>
>> From: Paul Keating<br>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:33 PM<br>
>> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges<br>
>> Cc: J. Scott Evans; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call<br>
>> held earlier today<br>
>><br>
>> George,<br>
>><br>
>> You can always quote me. I say what I have said. I only ask that you quote<br>
>> me accurately. The discussion here is the TMCH database. Please let's stay<br>
>> on topic.<br>
>><br>
>> Happy to discuss Whois separately.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my iPad<br>
>><br>
>>> On 12 Apr 2017, at 00:18, Nahitchevansky, Georges<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Can I quote you in this on having an open and robust whois so we can have<br>
>>> across the board actual and real information on the parties registering<br>
>>> domain names and know who the bad actors are<br>
>>><br>
>>> Georges Nahitchevansky<br>
>>> Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP<br>
>>> The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703<br>
>>> office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a> |<br>
>>> <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.kilpatricktownsend.com&c=E,1,kgJUlMQkaC7zcn6Rs66Ti2At9D_Ui1TtDyL3pG1zG__KTS7tVBHLK8dmlR-Js0Y7uaJnKxz_Zkc5RY8ItO8pCAXh9h_yFUPJgf2JB9nUCVpnQzK0&typo=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.kilpatricktownsend.com&c=E,1,kgJUlMQkaC7zcn6Rs66Ti2At9D_Ui1TtDyL3pG1zG__KTS7tVBHLK8dmlR-Js0Y7uaJnKxz_Zkc5RY8ItO8pCAXh9h_yFUPJgf2JB9nUCVpnQzK0&typo=1</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of Paul Keating<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 5:58 PM<br>
>>> To: J. Scott Evans<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working<br>
>>> Group call held earlier today<br>
>>><br>
>>> It says at most which domains it wants pre-emptiness and notice rights<br>
>>> over.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hardly a confidential business secret. The information is a public record.<br>
>>> And, After all the Information is instantly public the minute one<br>
>>> pre-emptive sunrise registration is undertaken. The notice right is<br>
>>> completely a non secret.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And hardly sufficient to use to hide bad actors.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Sent from my iPad<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 23:18, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> There is a big difference from a database that contains all a company’s<br>
>>>> registered marks and one that contains a culling for only those it deems<br>
>>>> most valuable for protection in the DNS. The former is clearly open for the<br>
>>>> public, the later is not.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> J. Scott<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> J. Scott Evans<br>
>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel)<br>
>>>> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544<br>
>>>> Director, Associate General Counsel<br>
>>>> 408.709.6162 (cell)<br>
>>>> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA<br>
>>>> Adobe. Make It an Experience.<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:jsevans@adobe.com" target="_blank">jsevans@adobe.com</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.adobe.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.adobe.com</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 4/11/17, 2:03 PM, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of Jeremy<br>
>>>> Malcolm" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 11/4/17 9:43 am, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg wrote:<br>
>>>>> George:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We have all followed this string. We understand that you and a few<br>
>>>>> others believe there need to be wholesale changes to the Sunrise mechanism<br>
>>>>> and the TMCH database (or at least the confidentiality of that data).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the Sunrise mechanism?<br>
>>>>> 2. I see very little support for violating the confidentiality<br>
>>>>> provisions of the TMCH contract.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> FWIW I am also all for bringing the transparency of the TMCH database<br>
>>>> into line with those of national trademark registries so that its<br>
>>>> secrecy does not facilitate the kinds of abuses that George has<br>
>>>> uncovered. I have been an observer until now but I've just upgraded to<br>
>>>> member and plan to join the call tomorrow.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm<br>
>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2528000b02f744c8d69a08d4811e3b81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275414221363260&sdata=FLU88IUnUq0DTixWIhDAELHUtjhYZgxqHGr8ihACkQ8%3D&reserved=0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2528000b02f744c8d69a08d4811e3b81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275414221363260&sdata=FLU88IUnUq0DTixWIhDAELHUtjhYZgxqHGr8ihACkQ8%3D&reserved=0</a><br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Public key:<br>
>>>> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2528000b02f744c8d69a08d4811e3b81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275414221373268&sdata=GzYW9x04IhxeW3HTyWRedWTpbiQQOrfZfflAKXdh04M%3D&reserved=0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2528000b02f744c8d69a08d4811e3b81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275414221373268&sdata=GzYW9x04IhxeW3HTyWRedWTpbiQQOrfZfflAKXdh04M%3D&reserved=0</a><br>
>>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>><br>
>>> Confidentiality Notice:<br>
>>> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the<br>
>>> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section<br>
>>> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by<br>
>>> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may<br>
>>> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney<br>
>>> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,<br>
>>> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or<br>
>>> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us<br>
>>> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original<br>
>>> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>><br>
>>> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal<br>
>>> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is<br>
>>> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of<br>
>>> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,<br>
>>> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter<br>
>>> addressed herein.<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This message contains information which may be confidential and legally<br>
>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose<br>
>> to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you<br>
>> have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this<br>
>> message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be<br>
>> used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
><br>
> !DSPAM:58ef90bc17161720142306!<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px">646-845-9428<br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>