[gnso-rpm-wg] Fwd: Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
J. Scott Evans
jsevans at adobe.com
Wed Apr 26 13:59:23 UTC 2017
Sorry. I failed to respond to the full list. In the gym. 😋
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>
Date: April 26, 2017 at 6:53:48 AM PDT
To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
I don't need a citation for black letter trademark. I can point you to McCarthy. I am fully aware that cause celeb with some IP academics is word exhaustion. However, ignoring that PARENTS is a suggestive mark for publications or that certain, even if initially descriptive, can become (at least in the US) a strong mark. I get you are fundamentally opposed to any mark having protection beyond its goods and services (even though both the ACPA and Dilution both embrace those concepts). I also know that trademark law is very fact specific with multi-factored tests to prove infringement. For this reason, you and I could throw citations to support our positions all day long. Let's focus on solutions. I acknowledge you dislike the RPMs and think they are overreaching.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 26, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
Citation needed.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:38 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>> wrote:
Rebecca:
You are simply wrong on the law.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 26, 2017, at 6:37 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
How does stylization translate into the DNS? We know that stylized
PARENTS and OWN YOUR POWER, to take two examples already discussed,
provide no trademark rights in the words "parents" and "own your
power." Accepting stylized versions, as Deloitte currently does, thus
gives TMCH protection to words as to which there is no underlying
trademark protection. "Text" is not an invention by ICANN.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>> wrote:
+1 Brian B. and J. Scott.
The T Markey (stylized) example Kathy gave proves the point I am trying to
make. There is nothing about that mark which would not translate into the
DNS or would limit analysis of it by a trademark office on absolute grounds.
So long as we continue to mash up Stylized marks with other design and
composite marks, we simply don’t have a functional vocabulary to have this
conversation. In other words, we have to use well established trademark
vocabulary to talk about trademarks. We can’t invent our own language and
then evaluate the TMCH rules through the new language rather than the
language it was written in.
Best,
Paul
From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans at adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:41 AM
To: Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>>
Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>; icannlists
<icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design
Mark and Appropriate Balance)
I have several problems with this proposal too. Kathy's conclusory statement
about how he breadth of protection afforded by a composite or stylized mark
is incorrect. Second, and more importantly, I am bothered by all the
hyperbole and accusatory language like "breach", etc. this language is
emotional and charged with negativity. I think it is inappropriate and not
productive.
J. Scott
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:10 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>> wrote:
Kathy,
It’s not clear that the reference to “only marks registered as text” is
necessarily incompatible with the “T. MARKEY” examples provided. The
second, stylized version shows a “mark registered as text”. It simply
happens to be text in a stylized (non-standard) form.
In other words, a mark “registered as text” may not necessarily be
exclusively the same as (in USPTO parlance) “a standard character mark”.
It may therefore not be entirely accurate to suggest that if the TMCH
allowed the second “T. MARKEY” example in stylized form (again, arguably a
mark “registered as text”) versus the standard character version, it would
somehow be “expand[ing] existing trademark rights”.
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:12 AM
To: icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design
Mark and Appropriate Balance)
Hi Paul,
Apologies. I saw your thanks, but not your notes farther down. (For those of
us skimming hundreds of emails, feel free to use use
red/green/stars/asterisks to designate comments...) I caught it on a
re-read...
Quick note that the purpose of this recommendation is to share what is
clearly before the Working Group: that rules created for the Trademark
Clearinghouse process are not being followed. The goal is not to delve into
motive or intent, but rather compliance and review. The actions of our TMCH
database provider, as an ICANN contractor, must follow and comply with the
rules as set out by the ICANN Community.
If we want to change the rules, that's fine; we can do it by consensus. But
until that happens, the rules adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council and
ICANN Board are the policy. It's not for third parties to make their own or
follow a different set.
Paul, I'll respond to what I think are your questions below. My answers are
preceded by =>
Best, Kathy
On 4/19/2017 8:23 PM, icannlists wrote:
Hi Kathy,
Thank you so much for being willing to put forward a proposal. I know this
is hard work (having put forward one on the GIs myself this week!) so it is
appreciated.
I am getting my initial thoughts on this out to the list on this as quickly
as possible in the hopes that your proposal can be reworked a bit prior to
our next WG call. A few thoughts:
1. We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed marks, and
any similar combination of characters and design (collectively “design
marks”).
We spent the better half of our last call untangling these definitions and
to see them lumped in together again when these are not the same things
makes the proposal impossible to read for we trademark folks. It would be
great if we could include the clarity we achieved last week.
==> The category is meant to be comprehensive and international.
2. However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database.
This is just inaccurate as written, mostly, but not entirely, by the way you
have defined the terms. For example, I know of no GNSO Council prohibition
that would reject a mark just because it is in a cursive font instead of
plain block font. Can you either fix this or send us to a link supporting
the claim? Perhaps if you unpack your collective definition, resulting a
more precise claim and provide the link, that might give us something to
talk about. As written now, I’ve just come to a halt on it because it
doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground.
==> Paul, what I wrote is nearly a direct quote. Please see the "Expanded
Discussion" discussion which follows in my recommendation directly below the
opening section and explains exactly where this sentence comes from and what
it references. I'm happy to paste some of this discussion here too. The STI
Final Report (adopted by GNSO Council and ICANN Board) stated:
“The TC Database should be required to include nationally or multinationally
registered “text mark” trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including
countries where there is no substantive review). (The trademarks to be
included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection
for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and
the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.)
Emphasis added. Section 4.1, National or Multinational Registered Marks,
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fissues%2Fsti%2Fsti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636288106505848556&sdata=hiv9%2Fm8w018T3t1y%2FbUYhcAiim2riM%2BPNuF15BkTY%2F0%3D&reserved=0
==> The words mean exactly what they say - only marks registered as text can
be registered into the Trademark Clearinghouse; nothing that "provide[s]
protection for letters and words only within the content of their design or
logo." It states why: "the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing
trademark rights." The issue was the balancing of underlying concept adopted
here as part of the rights of trademark owners and the rights of current and
future registrants. Domain names are text based.
==> We certainly meant to differentiate a trademark in a "cursive font
instead of a plain text font." That's the whole purpose for Section 4.1's
text, and the unusual extra step of including the explanation right next to
it. Those of us who worked on this section (including myself and Dr.
Konstantinos Komaitis, whose PhD became the book The Current State of Domain
Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated
World) spent a lot of time on this issue. In evaluating it, the STI Final
Report followed the guidance of experts such as those at the US Trademark
Office regarding the different representation of marks:
[USPTO Representation of Mark] "During the application process for a
standard character mark, the USPTO will depict the mark in a simple
standardized typeface format. However, it is important to remember that
this depiction does not limit or control the format in which you actually
"use" the mark. In other words, the rights associated with a mark in
standard characters reside in the wording (or other literal element, e.g.,
letters, numerals, punctuation) and not in any particular display.
Therefore, registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to
use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color. It is for this
reason that a standard character mark can be an attractive option for many
companies."
"The stylized/design format, on the other hand, is appropriate if you wish
to register word(s) by themselves or combined to form a phrase of any length
and/or letter(s) having a particular stylized appearance, a mark consisting
of a design element, or a combination of stylized wording and a design. Once
filed, any design element will be assigned a “design code,” as set forth in
the Design Search Code Manual."
"Here is an example of a standard character mark:
<image001.jpg>"
"Here are some examples of special form marks:
<image002.jpg> <image003.jpg>
<image004.jpg>"
Quotes above from
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Ftrademarks-getting-started%2Ftrademark-basics%2Frepresentation-mark&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505848556&sdata=71xhrgyiegxP1VDZdQa0adJW2eu5zd6KP6QTmKAi8d8%3D&reserved=0
The rest of the recommendation follows from these finding. Again, this not a
matter of a good job or a bad job -- no value judgement is intended. Rather
it is a compliance and review issue. Are the rules followed? The answer is
no.
Best, Kathy
3. Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
adopted and must revise its practice to follow the ruls adopted by the GNSO
Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation.
In order to buy this conclusion, the premises have to be correct, but the
premises (as mentioned in 1 and 2) are not close to ready. I have to
suspend consideration of the conclusion contained in this paragraph due to
the faulty syllogism we have in front of us. Maybe if you make the edits in
1 and 2 suggested, we can then examine whether or not your paragraph 3
conclusion is correct, partially correct, or incorrect.
4. Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules
and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of rules
that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow.
I guess I don’t understand this. Are you saying that if Deloitte is not in
breach by letting in marks written in cursive fonts, then the WG can by
Consensus propose changes? I’m not sure that the two things are connected.
5. In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied.
Further details, information and explanation below.
Same response as #3 above. Also, this really confused paragraph 4 for me
further. It seemed like paragraph 4 indicated that if paragraph 3 were not
accurate, consensus driven solutions would be possible (again not sure those
two things are connected) but then you go on to say in 5 that conclusions in
3 are a foregone conclusion (thus obviating any perceivable need for
paragraph 4).
I’m sure other thoughts will come to me as we dig in to either this version
or an amended version, but these were the issues that jumped out at me right
away. If you could respond to the full list on this as soon as practical, I
would appreciate it.
Best,
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:18 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark
and Appropriate Balance)
Hi All,
As promised, I am resubmitting a new version of my earlier recommendation.
It now addresses issues from Question #7 (Design Marks) and #16 (Appropriate
Balance). I submit this recommendation to the Working Group in my capacity
as a member and not as a co-chair.
Text below and also attached as a PDF.
Best, Kathy
------------------------------------------------------
Design Mark Recommendation for Working Group - for Question #7 and Question
#16 of TMCH Charter Questions (#7, How are design marks currently handled by
the TMCH provider?; and #16, Does the scope of the TMCH and the protections
mechanisms which flow from it reflect the appropriate balance between the
rights of trademark holders and the rights of non-trademark registrants?)
We (the RPM Working Group) have found a problem:
1. We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed marks, and
any similar combination of characters and design (collectively “design
marks”).
2. However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database.
3. Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
adopted and must revise its practice to follow the rules adopted by the GNSO
Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation.
4. Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules
and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of rules
that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow.
5. In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied.
Further details, information and explanation below.
Expanded Discussion
A. Expressly Outside the TMCH Rules Adopted by the GNSO Council & ICANN
Board
The GNSO Council & ICANN Board-adopted rules (based on the STI Final Report
and IRT Recommendations) that were very clear about the type of mark to be
accepted by the Trademark Clearinghouse:
“4.1 National or Multinational Registered Marks The TC Database should be
required to include nationally or multinationally registered “text mark”
trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no
substantive review).”
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fissues%2Fsti%2Fsti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636288106505848556&sdata=hiv9%2Fm8w018T3t1y%2FbUYhcAiim2riM%2BPNuF15BkTY%2F0%3D&reserved=0
Further, the adopted rules themselves are very clear about the Harm of
putting design marks into the TMCH Database:
“[Also 4.1] (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because
“design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the
context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to
expand existing trademark rights.)
The Applicant Guidebook adopted the same requirements, as it must and
should, namely:
“3.2:Standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse
3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all
jurisdictions”
Nonetheless, and in violation of the express rules adopted by the GNSO
Council and ICANN Board and placed into the Applicant Guidebook, TMCH
Provider Deloitte is accepting into the TMCH database words and letters it
has extracted from composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks,
composite marks and mixed marks. Deloitte is removing words and letters from
designs, patterns, special lettering and other patterns, styles, colors, and
logos which were integral to the trademark as accepted by the national or
regional trademark office.
B. Harm from the Current Form
The harm from this acceptance is that it violates the rules under which
Deloitte is allowed to operate. It creates a situation in which Deloitte is
operating under its own authority, not that of ICANN and the ICANN
Community. Such action, in violation of rules clearly adopted by the GNSO
Council and ICANN Board and written into the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook,
gives too much power to Deloitte -- a contractor of ICANN, to make its own
rules and adopt its own protocol without regard to the scope, breadth and
reach of the governing rules.
It is the type of misconduct anticipated by the GNSO Council and ICANN
Board, and why the rules demand that ICANN hold a close relationship with
the TMCH Provider by contract to allow close oversight and correction of
misinterpretation or failure to follow the rules. (See, 3.1 in Relationship
with ICANN, Special Trademark Issues Review Team Recommendations).
C. Presumption of Trademark Validity Does Not Extend to Non-Stylized Version
of the Registration Marks
Further, words and letters within a composite marks, figurative marks,
stylized marks, and mixed marks are protected within the scope of the
designs, logos, lettering, patterns, colors, etc. That's not a Working Group
opinion, that's a legal opinion echoed through case law and UDRP decisions.
In WIPO UDRP Decision Marco Rafael Sanfilippo v. Estudio Indigo, Case No.
D2012-1064, the Panel found:
“Complainant has shown that it owns two trademark registrations in
Argentina. The Panel notes that both registrations are for “mixed” marks,
where each consists of a composition made of words and graphic elements,
such as stylized fonts, a roof of a house, etc. See details of the
registrations with drawings at section 4 above.
“As explained on the INPI website, “[m] ixed (marks) are those constituted
by the combination of word elements and figurative elements together, or of
word elements in stylized manner.” Accordingly, the protection granted by
the registration of a mixed mark is for the composition as a whole, and not
for any of its constituting elements in particular. Thus, Complainant is not
correct when he asserts that it has trademark rights in the term “cabañas”
(standing alone), based on these mixed trademark registrations.”
Similarly, in the US, federal courts have found that the presumption of
trademark validity provided by registration does not extend to the
non-stylized versions of the registration marks. See e.g.,
Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill.
2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized
uses); Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing
with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent stylization),
aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d.
Cir. 2016).
D. Beyond the Scope of the TMCH Protection that the GNSO Council and ICANN
Board Agreed to Provide Trademark Owners.
As has been pointed out in our Working Group calls, the STI evaluations and
IRT evaluations were long and hard and both groups decided in their
recommendations to protect only the word mark – the text itself when the
text was registered by itself. Neither allowed for the extraction of a word
or letters from amidst a pattern, style, composite or mixed marks; neither
created a process for doing so; neither accorded the discretion to the TMCH
Provider (now Deloitte) to adopt any processes to handle this process
independently.
The STI clearly elaborated its reasoning: that extracting a word or letters
from a larger design, gives too many rights to one trademark owner over
others using the same words or letters. As clearly elaborated in the STI
Recommendations and adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
(unanimously), it would be an unfair advantage for one trademark owner over
others using the same words or letters. Specifically:
“(The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design
marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of
their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing
trademark rights.)”
To the extent that Deloitte as a TMCH Provider is operating within its
mandate, and the limits of the rules and contract imposed on it, it may not
take steps to expand existing trademark rights. The rights, as granted by
national and regional trademark offices are rights that expressly include
the patterns, special lettering and other styles, colors, and logos that are
a part of the trademark granted by the Trademark Office and certification
provided by each Trademark Office and presented to the Trademark
Clearinghouse.
II. Breach and Correction
Accordingly, Deloitte is in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted and must
revise its practice to go to follow the rules adopted by the GNSO Council
and ICANN Board. Deloitte’s extraction of words and letters from patterns,
special lettering, styles, colors and logos, as outlined above, violates the
rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for the Trademark
Clearinghouse operation.
Bringing Deloitte’s operation of the TMCH – and its terms and requirements -
rules does not require a consensus of the Working Group. Rather, it is a
fundamental aspect of our job as a Working Group, as laid out by the GNSO
Council in our charter, to review the operation of the Trademark
Clearinghouse in compliance with its rules. As Deloitte is not operating in
compliance with its rules in this area, it is in breach and must come into
compliance. The excellent work of the Working Group in this area, and
finding this problem through hard work and research, should be sufficient
for ICANN Staff to act in enforcement of its contract and our rules. Point
it out clearly and directly to Deloitte, to ICANN Board and Staff, and to
the ICANN Community is one small additional step the Working Group might
take.
Alternatively, the Working Group by consensus may CHANGE the rules and
present to the GNSO Council and ICANN Board a new set of standards by which
Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may use to accept the design and
stylized marks currently barred by the rules. But such a step would require
a change to the ICANN rules under which the Trademark Clearinghouse operate,
and then acceptance by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. ICANN contractors
do not have the unilateral power to make their own rules or to change the
rule that are given them.
________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
under applicable tax laws and regulations.
World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int%2Fipday&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505848556&sdata=S%2BdSQzbaw9nqwZZyxONj%2FO0tmTxsY0ohyn69eTXE%2FpI%3D&reserved=0
Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2Fworldipday&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505848556&sdata=UgNkJ0zctwwKbA%2BCShqC6EQ%2FyzYXZFQdpAlNmssjplM%3D&reserved=0
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message
may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If
you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the
sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all
e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1cb6c609e6042807af208d48c7bb9d2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636287910468596475&sdata=wWLmXEHyKcM061x4%2F1Gc3fZh5LgyUh8RvMR9zR7l2yo%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9634d6087c074d32337508d48ca96206%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636288106505858564&sdata=2bGurU9RuIXQe%2FqGG%2Bm9MUguEqUMhLRsy%2FNjn5%2FJ9SY%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170426/214c636d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list