<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline">I too am unable to support an approach that veers towards "re-litigating" decided URS cases.<br><br>Focus should be placed on a 'procedural' review. I had suggested in the chat during the call the use of a 'checklist of sorts' as a basis for making inquiries with the providers in order to assess whether their panelists have applied themselves properly.<span> </span><br><br>On the basis that we ought not act as reviewer of decisions (given that we do not investigate the circumstances of each case nor are we an appellate body for such cases), we should aim to get useful feedback from the providers by way of "did your panelist follow our checklist of steps/tasks in adjudicating a complaint?" and if not, then why? The "why" answer could be by way of a choice out of a preset list of reasons to tease out statistical data. <br><br></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline"><span>While I make no assumptions on the quality of feedback from providers, asking them to provide it would alleviate us of the task of having to dive into all or even a selection of the cases ourselves. </span></span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline">And then extend our review to influence the shape of training of panelist as conducted by providers.</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><span> </span></span>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><br>Justine<br>-----</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 February 2018 at 23:05, Paul Keating <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es" target="_blank">Paul@law.es</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><div>While I also have some concerns about the “re-litigating” issue, there is no need to do so. We are only trying to determine at a relatively high level if the correct standard appears to be applied consistently. I feel a review is appropriate. However any review must be of a statistical meaningful sample. I don’t believe that focussing only on appeals is an appropriate sample from which to make determinations regarding the entire pool of URS cases. Appeals happen because of many things which may or may not be related to the standard having been correctly applied (e.g. Domain value, low cost of appeal, personal vendettas, etc).</div><div><br></div><div>And, I believe that the review should be undertaken with a request for the underlying complaint and response (if any). These documents are needed so as to ensure that the orders do in fact correctly apply the standard to the actual evidence submitted. Obviously we need to provide appropriate protection for the documents at issue with gated access to a limited group who will retain the documents in confidence.</div><div><br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><span id="m_-609250844542471003OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt"><span class=""><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><wbr>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" target="_blank">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>><br></span><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:18 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "Tushnet, Rebecca" <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>, Julie Bisland <<a href="mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org" target="_blank">julie.bisland@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>><div><div class="h5"><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 01 February 2018<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="m_-609250844542471003MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5 solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5"><div><div class="h5"><div><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-609250844542471003WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Thanks Rebecca,
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">On this perhaps somewhat semantic point, I tend to agree, and I could be wrong but I think what is actually meant is a “substantive” review (which as was noted by several people
on the call, risks re-litigating cases without the benefit of the pleadings – and drawing policy implications therefrom). Below I was merely quoting from the transcript.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">In terms of the appeals/lack thereof, with respect, I think it is pretty well articulated below (“</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">to
see if registrants themselves believe the standard is being misapplied</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">”).
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Another perhaps more colloquial way of putting it would be to say, if there are misgivings about the standard being applied in the URS – and to your point about drawing policy
inferences form the rate of default, and especially when it literally costs <u>nothing</u>* to respond – are people putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">* Except in consolidated cases against 15 or more domain names, which I think may not yet have even occurred.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The point was that we are in somewhat of a chicken-and-egg scenario, so my suggestion was merely intended to propose a more rational and focused first pass to review select
cases, if indeed it is even the collective consensus of the WG to do so (which so far seems far from clear).
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">If a first pass at such a narrower dataset reveals it would be beneficial to expand the effort, the WG could take it from there.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Brian
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> Tushnet, Rebecca [<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.<wbr>edu</a>]
<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:26 PM<br><b>To:</b> BECKHAM, Brian; Julie Bisland; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 01 February 2018<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div id="m_-609250844542471003divtagdefaultwrapper"><p><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">I'd like to reiterate to the mailing list that "subjective" is often being used in an undefined and I think unjustified way. As was pointed out on the call, there are plenty of qualitative inquiries
on which we can expect agreement and which shouldn't be deemed "subjective" by any standard: did the panelist identify the domain name at issue? Did the panelist identify the abusive use? Aggregated, these individual observations provide valuable information
about the transparency and functioning of the process as a whole. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">In general, many in this group don't trust the average registrant involved in a dispute, so it's not clear to me why their appeals, or lack thereof, would guide whether we think the process is
working. Especially when there are a lot of defaults, the appeal rate doesn't indicate much--similar to debt collection against poor people in the US, where there are lots of defaults but when individual claims are examined they often don't hold up. I expect
that the rate of valid claims in the URS is much higher than the rate of valid claims in US debt collection cases, but that's just an expectation in advance of a lot of data. Relatedly, the appealed cases are ones where the process is most likely to work
as intended, because the parties join the issues. But again, that's an expectation, and should be examined.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div id="m_-609250844542471003Signature"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:black">Rebecca Tushnet<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:black">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><hr size="2" width="98%" align="center"></div><div id="m_-609250844542471003divRplyFwdMsg"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><wbr>>
on behalf of BECKHAM, Brian <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" target="_blank">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:04:27 AM<br><b>To:</b> Julie Bisland; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 01 February 2018</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><div><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Thanks Terri, Julie,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Having listened to the call recording, it is plain to see there is strong (and well-reasoned) disagreement on whether to proceed with a “subjective
and qualitative review” of URS decisions with respect to the standard of evidence.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Given this, and perhaps as a start, we can look to see the number of cases which have been appealed -- whether on the merits or following a default
-- to see if registrants themselves believe the standard is being misapplied. A statistically low number of appeals would suggest the answer may be “no”.
</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">If on the other hand, there is a significant instance of appeals, that may merit the type of “review” proposed by some WG members. For that event,
perhaps the WG should already agree to avoid an approach that would risk re-litigating the decisions themselves; instead, the WG could agree to
<i>only</i> review select URS decisions with a view to possible “improvements” <i>
going forward</i> (e.g., as I believe Jeff Neuman proposed, suggesting that decisions should contain some minimal reasoning/elements).</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Brian
</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> gnso-rpm-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Bisland<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:24 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 01 February 2018</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"> <u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Dear all,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Please find the attendance</span> and AC Chat transcript<span style="color:black"> of the call attached to this email. The MP3</span> and<span style="color:black"> Adobe Connect recording
</span>are<span style="color:black"> below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs)</span><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black">PDP Working Group call held
</span>Thursday, 01 February 2018 at 04:00 UTC<span style="color:black">. Attendance</span> and recordings<span style="color:black"> of the call is posted on agenda wiki page:
</span> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_uAxyB&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=2682DBiTWiUf_zL-BdajRcoU9eSWQS053WkHQCCLKIA&s=B6_xLKTzbSMugFS24znCh5-AOPHfaylATml5PH6QU2Q&e=" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>x/uAxyB</a><u></u><u></u></p><p style="line-height:15.6pt;background:white"><b>MP3: </b><span style="color:#111111"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gnso-2Drpm-2Dreview-2D01feb18-2Den.mp3&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=2682DBiTWiUf_zL-BdajRcoU9eSWQS053WkHQCCLKIA&s=a5MR5HKPZXxEzSYhPVLgBP-z5u9CfwX-FYF4NAYkUmE&e=" target="_blank">https://audio.icann.org/gnso/<wbr>gnso-rpm-review-01feb18-en.mp3</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span class="m_-609250844542471003xmsohyperlink"><b>Adobe Connect recording: </b></span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__participate.icann.org_p6mww2tis6b_&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=2682DBiTWiUf_zL-BdajRcoU9eSWQS053WkHQCCLKIA&s=RJs2bS_ca1WJo0SpJIVmki2x7PKi3Vys_oqa-pAwDgA&e=" target="_blank">
https://participate.icann.org/<wbr>p6mww2tis6b/</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=2682DBiTWiUf_zL-BdajRcoU9eSWQS053WkHQCCLKIA&s=ur-xpgtinOuwMSg8wnX6YTUr9mQF4tVqWR5Uu867J80&e=" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/en/<wbr>group-activities/calendar</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"> <u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white"><span style="color:black">** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Mailing list archives: </span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=2682DBiTWiUf_zL-BdajRcoU9eSWQS053WkHQCCLKIA&s=d08WTVPvoIs8pbaizleMN-TkGoViJWukVFjCsoQa_as&e=" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;background:white">http://mm.icann.org/<wbr>pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white">Main w<span style="color:black">iki page</span> for the working group<span style="color:black">: </span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_wCWAAw&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=2682DBiTWiUf_zL-BdajRcoU9eSWQS053WkHQCCLKIA&s=WDlCIXZEF11cuAabLb8GpAmIJEA5R1y6gEpqKCi5D1A&e=" target="_blank">https://community.<wbr>icann.org/x/wCWAAw</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"> <u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Thank you.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background:white">Terri<u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_-609250844542471003xmsonormal" style="background:white"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>