<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Sorry but I do not see what you see.</div><div><br></div><div>The questions are neutral questions asking for a fact-based reply. They do not presume anything. This is clear from reading the qualifying questions at issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding some panelists not being attorneys, I have several responses. Primarily, given that the UDRP/URS is founded in legal principles, I question the use of those without legal training. Further, conflicts checking is not limited to attorneys.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding your suggestion that attorneys confirm who they are representing when domains use false WHOIS data or privacy, rest assured. There are plenty of rules and regulations that require an attorney to verify the identity of clients – the least of which are the regulations concerning money laundering.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the fact-checking, I am fine with your suggestion - as long as it applies to both complainants and to respondents. Personally, I am troubled by the fact that representatives can even provide a certification when they themselves have no personal knowledge. I presume that allowing such a process in the UDRP/URS space grew out of the trademark practice (where providing such certifications to the registration authorities is a common practice). However, if you want to change it that is fine with me – as long as it applies to both sides.</div><div><br></div><div>As to the proposal to limit inquiry to those clearly provided under the rules, that is not consistent with our marching orders. In fact if we took that approach to everything we would be left without much to investigate.</div><div><br></div><div>To conclude, I would submit that it is really your comments that are the loaded ones and intended to prevent an inquiry into a legitimate issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_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 style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>, Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1877812891;
mso-list-template-ids:1844891674;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear All:<o:p></o:p></span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Below are the questions being referred to. I likewise object to these questions which have an underlying assumption
that Panelists are somehow biased and don’t screen conflicts properly. It also assumes that the panelists are all attorneys at law firms and the law firms do not have proper screening mechanisms for conflicts. Simply put, most of these questions are loaded
questions that are meant to further a particular agenda. If we are going to go down the route of these type of loaded questions, should we also be asking about attorneys, for example, who represent parties that registered names with bogus contact information
whether they conducted a thorough check so that they can certify that they truthfully identified the party they are representing and how they conducted that check (e.g., what mechanisms are in place and all steps taken). After all the ethical rules make clear
that attorneys are bound by requirements that attorneys be truthful. In that vein, should we also ask whether the attorneys representing parties have been truthful and checked the facts that they are stating in their papers – and what steps they take to certify
and insure this. I can think of several examples I personally know of where an attorney simply lied in the submissions. Should this now be an entire line of inquiry. Should we ask whether Rule 11 type sanctions be available in URS cases where an attorney
representing a party is found to represent a party with fake contact information or has lied in the papers. I can think of many more loaded lines of inquiries if that what some want to do, but ultimately I don’t think these are going to be productive in moving
the ball forward.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">In light of the questions that were suggested on the provider side of things, I think the only issue to raise is whether
Panelists are impartial per the requirements of the rules and what providers do to make sure that is the case – and nothing more, . These questions should not be here and should be deleted in their entirety<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>4. Do you serve as a URS panelist?</i></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">A. Yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">B. No<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>5. If yes, do you undertake a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse conflict of interest to the complainant and/or
respondent?<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">A. Yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">B. No<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>If yes, please briefly describe the methods used to verify the absence of conflicts:___________________________________________________’<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>If yes, do you retain records of your search?<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">A. Yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">B. No<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>6. Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a panelist?<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">A. Yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">B. No<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>If yes, please briefly explain the nature of such communications:_________________________<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span lang="EN"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> gnso-rpm-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 2, 2018 1:05 AM<br><b>To:</b> Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">I have significant objections to the questions to Examiners that were tacked on to the end of the Practitioners questionnaire at the 11th
hour. Apologies for not focusing on this before now. I don't believe these have really been properly reviewed or discussed.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">I believe these questions are inappropriate in a poll of practitioners, as these are questions directed to "panelists." (The proper
term is Examiner....) It feels like a "bait and switch" tactic. If we are going to survey Examiners, let's survey Examiners -- not ambush practitioners. On that basis alone, we should eliminate these questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">I am also troubled by the questions themselves. Singling out these questions, out of all that we might ask Examiners, seems vaguely accusatory.
<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">The basis for these questions is questionable. I've reviewed the URS Procedures and Rules, and none of these questions comes out of a
Procedure or Rule. The Examiners are supposed to declare conflicts of interest, but there is no instruction on how to implement that. As such, there is no requirement that an Examiner undertake any type of conflicts check much less something as specific
as "a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse conflict of interest to the complainant and/or respondent." Asking the question implies that this is an imperative when it is not.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">On top of that, this verbiage does not accurately describe a conflict check. What is a "potentially adverse conflict of interest"? Why
is it only asking about adverse conflicts? I note that the Forum does have a Supplementary Rule that "A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be unfair and biased, including but not
limited to ... The Examiner has served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association." This does not ask the Examiner to run a conflict check, but notably, the issue it
raises is the exact <u>opposite</u> of the issue implied in these proposed questions -- the Forum is highlighting representing a party, not being adverse (much less "potentially adverse) to a party.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">Now, I'm not saying it's a bad idea for an Examiner to run a (properly defined) conflict check, but the very fact that we are debating
Examiner actions and requirements in a practitioners poll should tell us we're in the wrong place.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">For that reason, I will not discuss the problems in the follow-up questions on conflict checks.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">The final question is even worse. ("Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a
panelist?') As far as I know, this is not prohibited behavior, especially not this broadly described. It seems designed to make people feel like they might have done something wrong. (If this is expressly prohibited by the Rules or Procedures, then perhaps
we could fashion a question out of that Rule/Procedure <u>if we were putting together a poll for Examiners</u>.) Is it improper to "communicate" with your spouse about a URS case? With one of your law partners? With a fellow Examiner?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">Long story short, these questions should be deleted.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#222222">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org" target="_blank">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="m_3096627011750983672__MailOriginalBody">Dear RPM PDP WG members,</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 02 May 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC. Times are proposed as estimates and may be adjusted.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Proposed Agenda:<o:p></o:p></p><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute)<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Final Status of Questions for Practitioners and Providers (9 minutes)<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Report from the Documents Sub Team (20 minutes)<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Discussion on URS Phase II proposal (59 minutes) See John McElwaine’s original email at:
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html" target="_blank">
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html</a> and a Google Sheet with the proposal as tab one, and the responses as tab two at:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFGZbuGpQnOgI/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFGZbuGpQnOgI/edit?usp=sharing</a><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Notice of agenda for 09 May meeting (1 minute)<o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><br><hr><font face="Arial" color="Black" size="1"><br>
Confidentiality Notice:<br>
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.<br></font><br><hr><font face="Arial" color="Black" size="1"><br>
***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.<br></font></div></div>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></span></body></html>