<html 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">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Fine with me. Thank you Brian.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 1:27 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Scott Austin <saustin@vlplawgroup.com>, "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, Paul Keating <paul@law.es>, Gerald Levine <gmlevine@researchtheworld.com>, 'Mitch Stoltz' <mitch@eff.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I can agree with Brian’s formulation as well.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Zak<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Scott Austin <saustin@vlplawgroup.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:25 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "Paul Keating \(LAW. es\)" <paul@law.es>, Gerald Levine <gmlevine@researchtheworld.com>, 'Mitch Stoltz' <mitch@eff.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">I agree and support Brian's proposed text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 11, 2020 6:21:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; Gerald Levine <gmlevine@researchtheworld.com>; 'Mitch Stoltz' <mitch@eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks Paul,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Agreed, and arguably this is a failing of the Providers to properly manage the case/educate examiners as this requirement already exists in
URS para 13(b) which states "The Examiner's Determination shall [ ] provide the reasons on which it is based..."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">I have now been able to listen to last week's call, and in particular noting the disagreement about which statistic is "correct", wonder if
-- rather than debating the precise verbiage to describe whichever statistic -- the following might work for the context para for Recommendation 7:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">"Depending on the criteria applied, it was observed that between 7% and 17% of Determinations in URS cases did not meet the requirement of
adequately articulating the reasoning on which the Determination was based."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Paul Keating <paul@law.es><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gerald Levine; BECKHAM, Brian; 'Mitch Stoltz'; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Regardless of the percentage, I see no reason why there cannot simply be a rule that in ANY URS decision, the panelist
must set forth the facts deemed established and the rationale for the decision. That simply corrects the apparent problem without having to guess at the reasons used to reach the conclusion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Gerald Levine <gmlevine@researchtheworld.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 1:47 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"'BECKHAM, Brian'" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, 'Mitch Stoltz' <mitch@eff.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Of course in BT the domain names were confusingly similar to household marks. It is trickier when complainant asserts
its mark is well-known but offers no evidence to establish it as a fact. The important point, well-established in UDRP cases, is that mark owners are not given benefit of the doubt on the bad faith requirement. This should equally be case with URS. GmLevine</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>BECKHAM, Brian<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 10, 2020 3:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Mitch, all</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Apologies that I missed last week's call and have not yet had a chance to listen to the recording, but with respect to the below, just for
one quick reference, the BT v One in a Million case speaks to this: <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1272.html">
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1272.html</a>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org">mitch@eff.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 10, 2020 9:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">It would be inappropriate to presume cybersquatting from the use of a "well known" brand name alone. There are any number of legitimate reasons for registering <brand>.<new gTLD>. And
we have no working standard for what "well known" means, especially internationally. Cybersquatting requires intent, and if some percentage of URS proceedings are presuming intent based on no facts but the domain name itself, that's highly relevant information
that should not be buried here.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">Mitch Stoltz</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"><a href="https://www.eff.org/donate">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/">https://act.eff.org/</a> </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">On 2/10/20 11:53 AM,
<a href="mailto:cking@modernip.com">cking@modernip.com</a> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">Agree Georges.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">We don’t need a percent figure. We can simply observe that ICANN needs specific info for data collection/oversight & outline those required fields.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="color:#212121"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="color:#212121">Cyntia King</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">O: +1 816.633.7647</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">C: +1 818.209.6088</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"><img border="0" width="129" height="58" style="width:1.3437in;height:.6041in" id="x_Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D5E0EC.EBFABF00" alt="Email
Logo5"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"> GNSO-RPM-WG
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Nahitchevansky, Georges<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 10, 2020 1:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a>; gnso-rpm-wg
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thank you Greg. I was looking for that email and went back through what I had reviewed. The bottom line is that
of the 103 cases that had been marked as having no rational, there were 45 that included enough to know what the case had been about and the rationale. That meant that 7% just reiterated the standard and ruled in favor of a party with nothing to deduce the
rationale. Of those 7%, though, a number of cases involved domain names that were based on a well-known trademark and it would not take much to understand that a domain name that was simply BRAND + gTLD likely involved cybersquatting. So in my view while
there are some cases that had no rationale, I do not believe we are talking overall about cases that involved rulings with no explanations regarding domain names that primarily involved a generic word with a gTLD. Most of the 58 cases (or 103) that arguably
had no specific rationale involved domain names that related to trademarks that are known, which again suggests something about the ruling. Put another way, there is a conceptual difference between a case that involves a domain name based on a well-known
brand such as <cocacola.beverage> and one that involves a generic word such as <fashion.clothes>. If the cases that have no articulated rationale primarily involved the latter type of domains, I would be much more concerned. But if they mostly relate to
known brands, I’m not sure that this suggests that there were errors committed by the panelist. Also, I do not believe that the 58 decisions at issue actually resulted in any appeals, which does suggest that perhaps the decisions were not unfounded.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">In any event, rather than go back and forth about whether we are talking about 7% or 13% of cases without a stated
rationale, I think the solution is to just say that there were several cases that had no clearly stated rationale without getting into percentages. After all, we are more or less in agreement that close to 90% of the cases had articulated rationale and that
there should be some tweak to address the minimum of what a URS decision should provide.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georges Nahitchevansky </span><span style="color:#1F497D">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 10, 2020 1:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GNSO-RPM-WG] The 7% Solution for URS Rationale [was: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"><br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#212121">All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#212121">Here is the Georges Nahitchevansky email that was referred to in last week's discussion of the percentage of URS decisions that lacked
a rationale. There was a subsequent discussion, so I recommend going back to the list if you want to see the follow-up.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#212121">Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: <strong>Nahitchevansky, Georges</strong> <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>><br>
Date: Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:27 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018<br>
To: Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>, Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@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>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;background:white">
<span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Rebecca:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I do not disagree with the notion that we should discuss what a decision should contain, but I don’t think we have
a consensus as to what that should be in the URS context (given the pricing of URS proceedings). Moreover, a review of the URS cases makes your 13% number and comment of “significant due process and implementation issues” point questionable. At NAF for example,
there were 827 cases that that your research assistants reviewed. I found a total of about 103 that your team flagged as having no articulated decisions. I would agree that in 58 cases the decisions lacked details, but in 45 cases there were details that
sufficiently let you know what the case was about and the basis of the resolution. I am sure we can argue about these 45 cases and whether they should say more, but ultimately we are really only talking about 58 cases that actually do not have any specific
details and just provide the standard and a resolution (although I note that most of these cases involve domain names based on fairly well known marks such as NISSAN, DATSUN, TEXACO, BLOOMBERG, BNP PARIBAS etc., so you pretty much know what trademark was involved.).
In all, we are really talking about 7% of the cases that have no details, which is not significant.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Again, we can discuss what the decisions should provide, but I don’t think we ought to be qualifying this as a “significant”
issue per se (as 93% of them have details). There are other issues being considered in the URS review that have better percentage numbers as an issue that are viewed as not being significant per se. The point is that the URS looks to be working appropriately
and there are probably some tweaks and refinements needed but this is not sky is falling issue.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;background:white">
<span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tushnet, Rebecca<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="x_m_-6589448025614526953m_-1652018880868742861divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">My apologies for missing the meeting. Comment on the big document:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">This is currently only covered under Defenses but I would put it for discussion/recommendations under 2. Examiners’ Guide/3. Other Issues
because it goes beyond defenses: Decisions should contain basic information, including what the trademark is, what the finding of abuse is and/or what findings are on any defenses—13% of decisions did not, and this raises significant due process and implementation
issues. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#212121">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<div id="x_m_-6589448025614526953m_-1652018880868742861divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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>>
on behalf of Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:56:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Dear All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018
(17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. <i>Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording.</i> The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the
wiki at: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_uwNpBQ&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=CypdnKxuYaImNW0ttGO-h5FbHiLxMQ2kzt4bzMuwnHU&s=gcgRms-bmezGQQmwXCqLMQXOdSv3gly_0bWYNSuRlY8&e=" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Ariel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Ariel Xinyue Liang</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">GNSO Policy Support Specialist</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">==</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">ACTION ITEMS:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by
<b>COB Tue, 14 Aug</b>. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy
issues. </span><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">NOTES:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Review Agenda/Statements of Interest</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community:
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_gnsosoi_George-2BKirikos-2BSOI&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=CypdnKxuYaImNW0ttGO-h5FbHiLxMQ2kzt4bzMuwnHU&s=8-YfNNseZ7YW77BHJT9ciEr_I08JQcazWKn1rxNI900&e=" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing
what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual
list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2).</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If
there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the
table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see:
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html</a> ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their
rights.</span><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next
few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect
as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus.
In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then
discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Limited filing period (page 3) </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He
said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in
practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and
Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Administrative Review (page 3-4) </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need
to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers
must abide by them. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:110.45pt;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit
was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:110.45pt;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges,
etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:110.45pt;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table
of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not
result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">ACTION ITEM:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">SMD Files (page 6-7)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the
limited info SMD files would provide. </span><span style="color:#212121"> </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable
Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider:
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearinghouse.com_help_faq_which-2Dinformation-2Ddoes-2Dsmd-2Dfile-2Dcontain&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=CypdnKxuYaImNW0ttGO-h5FbHiLxMQ2kzt4bzMuwnHU&s=v3df_qE8Dw_U7YY7_IfhIMgGSxt-a44LbNskorrbTIg&e=" target="_blank">
http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-file-contain</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which
can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file
is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Other Topics (page 7-8)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should
become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and
propose changes. </span><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working
groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the
input. </span><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Duration of response period (Page 11)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are
not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most,
there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would
not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases
just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than
$50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Examiners Guide (page 13) </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes
to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the
costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance.</span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">Other topics (page 23-24)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">ACTION ITEM</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension
issues in the written responses.</span><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121">NEXT STEPS </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">ACTION ITEM</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document
and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-.25in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#212121">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#212121">
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">ACTION ITEM</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics
Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. </span><span style="color:#212121">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#212121">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#212121">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">_______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"><a href="mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org">GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">_______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:#212121">By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><br>
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error,
please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>