[GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH

Mon Oct 14 20:47:02 UTC 2019

Michael,

What Marc said.

To make it clearer, a company will file for different marks in Country A
vs. Country B because they use a different subset of their total brand
portfolio in each country.

Even moving between the USA and Canada, you must have noticed products
available in one country but not the other, even though the parent company
does business in both countries.  Just try to buy a Coffee Crisp in the
States. (Due to a failed attempt to introduce Coffee Crisp several years
back, the TM may be registered here, but you get the point.)

Let’s put the “elaborate scenario” to rest and move on (unless there is
transcript or email evidence that this position was actually put forth as
an argument in favor of a closed database).

The explanation given by Marie has been the primary stated concern since
the beginning — I can remember Susan Kawaguchi stating  this about 3 years
ago.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM Marc Trachtenberg via GNSO-RPM-WG <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Michael,
>
>
>
> How exactly does this come full circle to the elaborate scenario  that
> Jason first asked about?  Jason asked about a practice where “Large brand
> owners like the ability to file in “remote” jurisdictions with
> non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date that can later be used for
> priority presumably in the US under a Section 44 application under the
> Paris Convention.”  I am not sure where he is getting his information from,
> particularly the part about the large brand owners “liking” this ability.
>  I am not aware of this practice being widespread and Jason has presented
> no facts or evidence that this strategy regularly occurs other than his
> bald and conclusory allegation of such.
>
>
>
> Irrespective of whether this practice is prevalent (which its not),
> Georges’ point that often brand owners file for different marks in
> different countries depending on local products, translation issues and
> other business reasons in no way connects or supports Jason’s conspiracy
> theory.
>
>
>
> That leaves us with Georges’ other point, which is that there does not
> seem to be a strong reason supported by real world evidence supporting
> opening up the TMCH while there is ample evidence of trademark and brand
> abuse which supports keeping the database closed.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Marc H. Trachtenberg*
> Shareholder
> Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL
> 60601
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/77+West+Wacker+Drive+%7C+Suite+3100+%7C+Chicago,+IL+60601?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel 312.456.1020
>
> Mobile 773.677.3305
>
> trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
>
>
>
> [image: Greenberg Traurig]
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael
> Karanicolas
> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2019 3:09 PM
> *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> *Cc:* J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH
>
>
>
> Thanks Georges - we have now come full circle to the "elaborate scenario"
> which Jason first asked about, and which your colleagues disavowed earlier
> in this very thread.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:03 PM Nahitchevansky, Georges <
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> With all due respect not every country is listed in the WIPO database.  In
> fact there are a number of countries that are not listed or included there
> and that are not online. I am surprised you do not know this.  Most
> practitioners know this. The point is that you have do much research to
> figure out all of the marks filed by a brand owner. Perhaps you do not know
> this, but often brand owners file for different marks in different
> countries depending on local products, translation issues and other
> business reasons. But again this is an aside.  the real point is that the
> concern of brand owners of having an open TMCH registry is the likelihood
> that it will lead to more abuse. There does not seem to be a strong reason
> supported by real world evidence supporting a change here
>
>
>
> *From:* mkaranicolas at gmail.com
>
> *Sent:* October 14, 2019 4:36 PM
>
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> A few points have been raised that warrant being addressed. First off - it
> wouldn't take "hours of painstaking searches" to find a trademark owner's
> full portfolio. WIPO has a wonderful tool which aggregates these databases
> together: https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/en/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www3.wipo.int_branddb_en_&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=1LwWScbonghAqwT9jIHMhEuXMtkQJey8DSBMUi5zfbQ&s=VZWft9Wmkt_-fiKa0lU4oDs7B4MYllu_BfCZSAa-b04&e=> It's
> a bit surprising to me that professionals working in this space are
> unfamiliar with this aggregated database... but live and learn.
>
> Regarding the technical challenges of findings a trademark owner's filings
> in the TMCH - while it is correct that the claims period only runs for 90
> days - the fact that there has been, and continues to be, a steady stream
> of new gTLD rollouts renders that relatively moot as an obstacle to access.
> I concede there might be some small financial risk to mining the data in
> this way (although I believe most credit cards allow for cancelled
> transactions within 24 hours or so) - but even so, it would be a relatively
> trivial amount of money in the context of corporate intelligence budgets.
> If the commercial value of this information doesn't exceed a few hundred
> dollars for a major brand, I would question whether it's as sensitive as
> people claim.
>
>
>
> I'm not going to engage in discussions about the original intent of the
> TMCH since I wasn't involved in ICANN at the time - except to note that
> there are those who were involved in the process who will argue vehemently
> that it was intended to be transparent.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 6:12 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Good points, Marc.
>
>
>
> And point #3 is what I expressed in my prior note, e.g. the mining of TMCH
> data was an issue that was contemplated during TMCH implementation in the
> content of *minimizing misuse of access*.
>
>
>
> As some may recall, there was a major proposal (submitted by a group of
> registries) designed to mitigate the misuse of access by decreasing the
> coupling of certain technical functions of the TMCH from registry
> interaction.
>
>
>
> Misuse of access was germane to these proposals. ICANN org ultimately
> decided against implementing certain proposed control mechanisms - but not
> for policy reasons based on the support/permission of data mining, but
> because ICANN org deemed the control mechanisms to be ineffective in
> practice.
>
>
>
> If anyone is interested in more background, please see the blog article
> linked to below (from CircleID) which took place at this juncture of TMCH
> implementation when the cited proposal was under consideration.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is the fact that someone can mine the TMCH data under
> current procedures, and then turnaround and use that data to target brands
> and register domain names abusively (in other TLDs) is, if anything, a
> problem we should be working to address.
>
>
>
> Moreover, data mining is a real indication that the number of TM Claims
> notices that were issued are not reflective of the true number of times an
> actual registrant sought to register a domain.
>
>
>
> So while we could try to develop TMCH recommendations that mitigate the
> practice of data mining, since that practice is inconsistent with the
> intended purpose and functionality of the TMCH, at a minimum, such
> harmful practices (which increase costs on all parties) do not
> constitute valid arguments for TMCH transparency in my opinion, and are not
> necessary for our team to build potential solutions for addressing
> stakeholder concerns.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120828_trademark_clearinghouse_secure_reliable_usable_pick_any_two/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20120828-5Ftrademark-5Fclearinghouse-5Fsecure-5Freliable-5Fusable-5Fpick-5Fany-5Ftwo_&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=1LwWScbonghAqwT9jIHMhEuXMtkQJey8DSBMUi5zfbQ&s=fnaVxbhwbUBXCwQt8vWEY94NhNnyrp3NReKHN9Yt3aM&e=>
>
>
>
> "The discussions focused on a fundamental contradiction in the TMCH
> specifications that are mandated by the Applicant Guidebook. During the
> development of the AGB, rights holders made it clear that a major concern
> for them was the risk of data mining if the database was released into the
> public domain: being able to identify new products being developed by
> global corporations (by tracking their registered trade marks) could
> threaten multi-billion dollar product development plans. This means
> restrictions on the distribution of the database, to minimise the chances
> of unauthorised access."
>
>
>
> Later in the article:
>
>
>
> "But the fundamental problems with the TMCH are much more serious: rights
> holder protection was probably the most controversial issue surrounding the
> programme, and if the protection mechanisms devised should fail, then it
> would be a significant blow to the credibility of ICANN as a corporation
> and as a community (as Kurt Pritz made clear in Brussels). Some very smart
> minds are now paying close attention to this issue, trying to resolve the
> problems."
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 2:45 AM Marc Trachtenberg via GNSO-RPM-WG <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1. Trademark Claims only runs for 90 days after Sunrise; and
>
> 2. The claims notice does not pop up when a domain name is searched.  The
> person must actually attempt to register the domain name before a Claims
> Notice will be generated and displayed
>
> In other words, it would take a significant amount of time and effort to
> try and circumvent the existing confidentiality and there would also be
> some measure of financial risk  - i.e., if there is no TMCH entry the
> person would be charged for the registration.  This might not cost so much
> on a one-off basis, but could quickly get expensive in the aggregate.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marc H. Trachtenberg
> Shareholder
> Greenberg Traurig, LLP
> 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/77+West+Wacker+Drive+%7C+Suite+3100+%7C+Chicago,+IL+60601?entry=gmail&source=g>
> T +1 312.456.1020
> trac at gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Karanicolas
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 1:30 PM
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH
>
> *EXTERNAL TO GT*
>
> Thanks Greg. Now can you explain to me why a person who wanted to know
> this "confidential strategy" wouldn't just go to any registrar, search for
> domains corresponding to the trademarks that an entity has registered, and
> see when a claims notification pops up, to get an accurate and complete
> picture of which marks they have chosen to put into the TMCH?
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:42 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Jason and all,
> >
> > This "elaborate scenario" (filing "in “remote” jurisdictions with
> non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date") is not at all the rationale
> that was put forth by those in favor of a closed TMCH database.
> >
> > I believe it's incorrect to say that this scenario was raised (in the
> chat, by John McElwaine, or otherwise) introduced this concept as part of
> an argument in favor of a closed TMCH database.
> >
> > I am not even aware of the use of the strategy as described in its
> totality.  I think this may be an unfortunate misunderstanding or
> mis-recollection of the earlier discussions and the surrounding facts.
> >
> > As I recall, the rationale is much more straightforward: A brand owner's
> choice of the subset of their trademarks to put in the TMCH is a
> confidential strategy. Giving third parties knowledge of this strategy
> allows these third parties to engage in activities that would harm TMCH
> registrants, which in turn would discourage use of the TMCH.  These
> activities include:  Targeting the brand owner's marks not in the TMCH for
> domain name registrations that can then be exploited in various ways;
> Developing a counter-strategy for TMCH registration (either by registering
> the same marks in the TMCH to enable contested Sunrises, or by registering
> the non-TMCH marks to gain advantage in Sunrise); Targeting the non-TMCH
> marks for counterfeiting, knock-offs, etc. (on the theory that the brand
> owner is less likely to put resources into policing and enforcing these
> less important marks), etc.
> >
> > However, if I'm incorrect about any of this, I'm always happy to learn
> new facts.
> >
> > I am aware that some applicants may choose to file in jurisdictions
> where registrations issue more quickly.  Even this limited scenario is not
> the practice of any brand owners I have represented or of which I'm
> specifically aware.  I can't speak to who or what type of applicant engages
> in even this limited practice.
> >
> > I do recall that one or a few people or entities have used some aspects
> of this strategy or something similar to try to "game" Sunrise.  The
> specific concern about gaming the TMCH and Sunrise is one that I believe we
> need to deal with. I believe we should do this in a targeted fashion, both
> to get to consensus in the WG and to avoid disadvantaging legitimate TMCH
> registrants.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:52 PM Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry for not being able to address this on yesterday’s call – I was
> bounced from the Zoom and couldn’t reconnect from my mobile.  After much
> consideration of the chat comments and statements during the past two calls
> I’ve parsed together the following strategy concerns that might be at
> issue.   It seems the opposition to an open/transparent TMCH have set forth
> the following rationale:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Large brand owners like the ability to file in “remote” jurisdictions
> with non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date that can later be used for
> priority presumably in the US under a Section 44 application under the
> Paris Convention.   For example, Party A could “secretly” register in say
> Mauritius or Jamaica (jurisdictions that I believe do not have searchable
> DBs), and then file a Section 44 with the USPTO when ready to “go public.”
>  In this scenario, large brand owner obtains the earlier priority date in
> the US without having disclosed its “secret” brand plans or strategy.
>  Alternatively, there may also be a similar use case with a registration in
> the EU.  This is what I understand the opposition was presenting in the
> comments last week and again yesterday.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This use of the “secret TM priority” filing method is one thing, and I
> understand the ostensible business intelligence concerns to require such a
> tactic.   However, we are discussing this in the context of the TMCH.  How
> can these parties obtain Sunrise protection without proof of use?   This is
> even more challenging in the case of an EU registration that might not be
> based on actual use.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the project is top secret and subject to heightened secrecy, how can
> the party then show legitimate use of the mark and obtain TMCH protection
> while maintaining its purported heightened secrecy?  What is the POU and
> what is the declarant stating to the TMCH?  Is this the position that the
> opposition is proffering to block transparency of the TMCH?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In addition, if I am correctly capturing how the method is employed in
> practice, it would be helpful to know if this practice is really in
> widespread use or rather an outlier, because I’m not yet seeing an
> important justification that outweighs the important benefits of an open
> TMCH.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> >> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
> >> lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7M
> >> B7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5H
> >> CCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=p0G55ilF08_Iyr92_FmVGGvzDpllCRfZum9Hv2tPKJE&e=
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=rH-ql8HG0wpBOJTd4fZrgAdrzFZh9S10jGhEaC8GqK4&e=
> ) and the website Terms of Service (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=MAbux7elzVrUiT9wXwhwYfo3q--DrGfdtGSSUty-cM0&e=
> ). 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
> > man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7
> > eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCH
> > lCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=p0G55ilF08_Iyr92_FmVGGvzDpllCRfZum9Hv2tPKJE&e=
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=rH-ql8HG0wpBOJTd4fZrgAdrzFZh9S10jGhEaC8GqK4&e=
> ) and the website Terms of Service (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=MAbux7elzVrUiT9wXwhwYfo3q--DrGfdtGSSUty-cM0&e=
> ). 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.
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=p0G55ilF08_Iyr92_FmVGGvzDpllCRfZum9Hv2tPKJE&e=
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=rH-ql8HG0wpBOJTd4fZrgAdrzFZh9S10jGhEaC8GqK4&e=
> ) and the website Terms of Service (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=xYe0WjZT9KAfGcToywGq7R-t5HCCHlCgQhxWTtGgMuk&s=MAbux7elzVrUiT9wXwhwYfo3q--DrGfdtGSSUty-cM0&e=
> ). 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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged
> information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at
> postmaster at gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=1LwWScbonghAqwT9jIHMhEuXMtkQJey8DSBMUi5zfbQ&s=RFyfL1euFPWwl96YIWPaAbPPAvTK9DSgSUw5jATuamQ&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=1LwWScbonghAqwT9jIHMhEuXMtkQJey8DSBMUi5zfbQ&s=MXU770CAZsKYuu63YYrtTz86vq6Yx9s-57CpOL2Smlg&e=>)
> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=1LwWScbonghAqwT9jIHMhEuXMtkQJey8DSBMUi5zfbQ&s=Dxgy1pXC7v701UIvGxk4xA0Kew2PAxqlWAOlV5MNYpA&e=>).
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ***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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191014/613ed9b9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6399 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191014/613ed9b9/image001-0001.jpg>