- Gnso-igo-ingo-crp - lists.icann.org

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Updated Impact Analysis document
by Mary Wong Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached, for your review and discussion on our upcoming Working Group call this Thursday, an updated Impact Analysis document into which staff has added the new options that had been identified by Working Group members since the last time we reviewed an earlier version of this document. We have also attempted to include those benefits and disadvantages that we believe have been raised in the recent discussions over the various options. Our co-chairs have seen this updated document, and Phil has also added several notes to supplement those from staff. Also attached is a redline that shows the changes that were made in this version, as compared to the June version that was discussed by the Working Group. Finally, please note that while staff and the co-chairs have included notes on benefits and disadvantages, the actual Impact Analysis of the options under discussion is a qualitative exercise, and as such it was staff’s assumption that completion of the document will depend on the efforts of and further discussion among the Working Group. Thanks and cheers Mary On 8/22/17, 11:07, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: Hello George and everyone, As far as we know, the call scheduled for this Thursday is still on. Staff expects to send an updated Impact Analysis document to the Working Group for discussion on the call, once we receive the go-ahead to do so from the co-chairs. We also hope to complete a draft Final Report this week, on which we presume discussions will take place after the Working Group completes its deliberations on the updated Impact Analysis. I hope this is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary On 8/22/17, 07:35, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: Hi folks, I notice we have a call scheduled for this Thursday (2 days from now). Is it still on? There hadn't been any new documents (i.e. the draft final report) to discuss, and if any new documents are sent, there'd be very limited time to review them in depth. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&… _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

August 24 call -- still on?
by George Kirikos Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Hi folks, I notice we have a call scheduled for this Thursday (2 days from now). Is it still on? There hadn't been any new documents (i.e. the draft final report) to discuss, and if any new documents are sent, there'd be very limited time to review them in depth. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

UPDATED : Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG call on Thursday, 03 August 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-03aug17-en.mp3[audio.ica…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p91rb6mos7a/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman Mason Cole Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa David Maher ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/eAghB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 03 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. (just stepping away for a few minutes) bbbiab George Kirikos:Let the trumpets sound, for I have made my triumphant return! :-) Philip Corwin:Hello all. I am participating by Adobe only from a remote fishing village in Maine. Was just on BC call and my audio stopped working twice, so let's see how this one goes. Petter Rindforth:Michelle, can you send a reminder of this meeting Michelle DeSmyter:absolutely George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil and Petter. Mary Wong:Hi Phil, all - Phil, hope you are having a wonderful and relaxing time, thanks for calling in! Philip Corwin:No cell service in my cottage, and no land line, just pokey wifi. Forces me to be on vacation ;-) Mary Wong:Great arrangements! :) Philip Corwin:Let me know when there is audio so I can see if I'm hearing it. And thanks Mary George Kirikos:Mary is speaking. Mary Wong:@Phil, can you hear us? (thanks, George!) Philip Corwin:Audio silence here.. I'll reboot adobe and see if that helps George Kirikos:Are there any plans for ICANN to ditch the Adobe software, given that it needs Flash? Flash is being phased out by Adobe in the next few years. Philip Corwin:Now I hear you George Kirikos:4 participants (removing staff) George Kirikos:5 rather George Kirikos:Oops, back to 6 now, lol. Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Is Paul Keating coming, to speak about his Option #5?? Philip Corwin:And we have Jay on audio only Mary Wong:@George, we pinged Paul K but don't believe we heard back Philip Corwin:George, I noted your email the other day regarding whether certain provisions in UDRP providers' Supplemental Rules went beyond permissible scope. That is an issue that I wish to see investigated by the RPM Review WG when it gets to UDRP next year. That doesn't prevent this WG from making a policy recommendation on the issue raised by Paul, although we are somewhat handicapped in considering his proposal absent his direct participation. Philip Corwin:Paul K, to be clear George Kirikos:Right, Petter. George Kirikos:Some still need to be fully fleshed out, too. George Kirikos:Paul K's suggestion is to do nothing. :-) George Kirikos:(but, the premise is possibly faulty) Philip Corwin:I have lost my audio feed :( Mary Wong:Oh dear, Phil - I guess we can't do a dialout to you if you don't have cell service or a land line Philip Corwin:That is correct George Kirikos:Perhaps try Wifi phonecall, and not use the Adobe aspect? (i.e just voice, e.g. Whatsapp, etc?) George Kirikos:Or Skype. Mary Wong:I was just asking if the WG would mind if staff referred the options to ICANN Legal, not to make a recommendation, but to see what process, costs, and feasibility issues may arise by pursuing any of them. Mary Wong:One thing I forgot to add is that having experienced legal process folks go through the options may be very helpful for the impact analysis as well. Mary Wong:@George, won't there be a concern with jurisdicitons that don't recognize one of these legal basis (in rem, quasi, personam) for domain names, so we may be inadvertently favoring some jurisdicitons over others? Philip Corwin:Even though Adobe says my connection status is excellent I still have no audio, even after two reboots. I'll wait a few minutes and see if it returns. George Kirikos:@Mary: possibly, it depends where the respondent (domain name owner) sues, i.e. if it's at the location of the registrar/registry, then the courts would have jurisdiction. Paul Tattersfield:its ok here Phil Mary Wong:OK thanks Petter - we will contact Legal and let you all know the result George Kirikos:Only option #6 has yet to be discussed. George Kirikos:If Phil is typing something long, he can hit "return" and split it into 2 parts. Philip Corwin:Skype not working, says it can't access my sound card. Maybe Adobe is causing that.. Anyway, I will try one more hgard reboot of Adobe and if that doesn't work I shall give up George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.ht… Philip Corwin:Sorry but that's not working. have a good call; I'll review the transcript. Bye Mary Wong:@George, thanks - yes, I was wondering whether that would mean we are restricting the jurisdictional options as a result. George Kirikos:A court would have authority if it's the court in the jurisdiction of the registrar/registry, yes. George Kirikos:So, if we want to cover ALL the bases, we'd need to remove the language in 4(k) and allow for those jurisdictions, and not just the mutual jurisdiction agreed by the IGO (perhaps just for IGO disputes0. George Kirikos:). George Kirikos:Exactly, the 10 days.....although, the lawsuit might happen even before the UDRP is decided, etc. George Kirikos:So, it's very poorly worded. George Kirikos:+1 Petter George Kirikos:Arbitration costs can be very high, by the way (e.g. ICANN's own arbitrations in relation to the new gTLDs have been in the 6-figures, etc.) George Kirikos:Not necessarily cheaper than the courts. Mary Wong:I can ask but I'm not sure they will feel equipped to comment George Kirikos:See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… (para 3(b)) Paul Tattersfield:I would guess 4k was simply to try and stop the registrant trying to bring an action against ICANN, UDRP provider, the registry, registrars etc. George Kirikos:Right, in rem or quasi in rem would simply determine the rightful owner of the domain name, and not other aspects (e.g. damages against the IGO, etc.) Mary Wong:The UDRP does not speak to whether domain names, in court proceedings, will be treated as in rem property. Paul Tattersfield:I think the damages is being overplayed they are only waiving immunity from jurisdiction George Kirikos:@Mary: yes. At that time (1999), it didn't contemplate whether domains were property, etc. Mary Wong:Unfortunately, even today, it is not clear in many jurisdictions whether they consider domain names as property, as that has not been tested in court. George Kirikos:@mary: for the most important disputes (.com, at the registry level), it is property. And it is in Ontario, for my domains. :-) [although, I have no domains conflicting with Article 6ter names, so no potential conflicts I ever see] Mary Wong:Hi George, I'm just saying that, outside the US and Ontario, it really isn't that clear. George Kirikos:Option 4 relates to option #1, though. George Kirikos:i.e. default is option #1, but option #2 for some names. :-) George Kirikos:Yes. George Kirikos:Maybe someone should phone Paul K? George Kirikos:(if he wants to get it done by the weekend?) Mary Wong:We will follow up with Paul, and ask for a response to the WG by Monday. George Kirikos:Option 6 relates to option #3, too. George Kirikos:Next meeting in 2 weeks? Or was it 3? Michelle DeSmyter:August 24th George Kirikos:So, we'll have a draft final report the week of August 17th, and then a call to discuss it on August 24th. Mary Wong:@George, that's the idea ... we'll do our best to get a document out in good time before the 24th George Kirikos:Consensus. Mary Wong:We will do an alternative timeline, with either no or a shorter public comment period? George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ George Kirikos:June 19th was the last email to that mailing list. George Kirikos:No, this is the other small group, with their separate mailing list. George Kirikos:https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc Paul Tattersfield:bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks.....have a nice 3 weeks. :-)

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG call on Thursday, 03 August 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-03aug17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p91rb6mos7a/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman Mason Cole Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa David Maher ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 03 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. (just stepping away for a few minutes) bbbiab George Kirikos:Let the trumpets sound, for I have made my triumphant return! :-) Philip Corwin:Hello all. I am participating by Adobe only from a remote fishing village in Maine. Was just on BC call and my audio stopped working twice, so let's see how this one goes. Petter Rindforth:Michelle, can you send a reminder of this meeting Michelle DeSmyter:absolutely George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil and Petter. Mary Wong:Hi Phil, all - Phil, hope you are having a wonderful and relaxing time, thanks for calling in! Philip Corwin:No cell service in my cottage, and no land line, just pokey wifi. Forces me to be on vacation ;-) Mary Wong:Great arrangements! :) Philip Corwin:Let me know when there is audio so I can see if I'm hearing it. And thanks Mary George Kirikos:Mary is speaking. Mary Wong:@Phil, can you hear us? (thanks, George!) Philip Corwin:Audio silence here.. I'll reboot adobe and see if that helps George Kirikos:Are there any plans for ICANN to ditch the Adobe software, given that it needs Flash? Flash is being phased out by Adobe in the next few years. Philip Corwin:Now I hear you George Kirikos:4 participants (removing staff) George Kirikos:5 rather George Kirikos:Oops, back to 6 now, lol. Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Is Paul Keating coming, to speak about his Option #5?? Philip Corwin:And we have Jay on audio only Mary Wong:@George, we pinged Paul K but don't believe we heard back Philip Corwin:George, I noted your email the other day regarding whether certain provisions in UDRP providers' Supplemental Rules went beyond permissible scope. That is an issue that I wish to see investigated by the RPM Review WG when it gets to UDRP next year. That doesn't prevent this WG from making a policy recommendation on the issue raised by Paul, although we are somewhat handicapped in considering his proposal absent his direct participation. Philip Corwin:Paul K, to be clear George Kirikos:Right, Petter. George Kirikos:Some still need to be fully fleshed out, too. George Kirikos:Paul K's suggestion is to do nothing. :-) George Kirikos:(but, the premise is possibly faulty) Philip Corwin:I have lost my audio feed :( Mary Wong:Oh dear, Phil - I guess we can't do a dialout to you if you don't have cell service or a land line Philip Corwin:That is correct George Kirikos:Perhaps try Wifi phonecall, and not use the Adobe aspect? (i.e just voice, e.g. Whatsapp, etc?) George Kirikos:Or Skype. Mary Wong:I was just asking if the WG would mind if staff referred the options to ICANN Legal, not to make a recommendation, but to see what process, costs, and feasibility issues may arise by pursuing any of them. Mary Wong:One thing I forgot to add is that having experienced legal process folks go through the options may be very helpful for the impact analysis as well. Mary Wong:@George, won't there be a concern with jurisdicitons that don't recognize one of these legal basis (in rem, quasi, personam) for domain names, so we may be inadvertently favoring some jurisdicitons over others? Philip Corwin:Even though Adobe says my connection status is excellent I still have no audio, even after two reboots. I'll wait a few minutes and see if it returns. George Kirikos:@Mary: possibly, it depends where the respondent (domain name owner) sues, i.e. if it's at the location of the registrar/registry, then the courts would have jurisdiction. Paul Tattersfield:its ok here Phil Mary Wong:OK thanks Petter - we will contact Legal and let you all know the result George Kirikos:Only option #6 has yet to be discussed. George Kirikos:If Phil is typing something long, he can hit "return" and split it into 2 parts. Philip Corwin:Skype not working, says it can't access my sound card. Maybe Adobe is causing that.. Anyway, I will try one more hgard reboot of Adobe and if that doesn't work I shall give up George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.ht… Philip Corwin:Sorry but that's not working. have a good call; I'll review the transcript. Bye Mary Wong:@George, thanks - yes, I was wondering whether that would mean we are restricting the jurisdictional options as a result. George Kirikos:A court would have authority if it's the court in the jurisdiction of the registrar/registry, yes. George Kirikos:So, if we want to cover ALL the bases, we'd need to remove the language in 4(k) and allow for those jurisdictions, and not just the mutual jurisdiction agreed by the IGO (perhaps just for IGO disputes0. George Kirikos:). George Kirikos:Exactly, the 10 days.....although, the lawsuit might happen even before the UDRP is decided, etc. George Kirikos:So, it's very poorly worded. George Kirikos:+1 Petter George Kirikos:Arbitration costs can be very high, by the way (e.g. ICANN's own arbitrations in relation to the new gTLDs have been in the 6-figures, etc.) George Kirikos:Not necessarily cheaper than the courts. Mary Wong:I can ask but I'm not sure they will feel equipped to comment George Kirikos:See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… (para 3(b)) Paul Tattersfield:I would guess 4k was simply to try and stop the registrant trying to bring an action against ICANN, UDRP provider, the registry, registrars etc. George Kirikos:Right, in rem or quasi in rem would simply determine the rightful owner of the domain name, and not other aspects (e.g. damages against the IGO, etc.) Mary Wong:The UDRP does not speak to whether domain names, in court proceedings, will be treated as in rem property. Paul Tattersfield:I think the damages is being overplayed they are only waiving immunity from jurisdiction George Kirikos:@Mary: yes. At that time (1999), it didn't contemplate whether domains were property, etc. Mary Wong:Unfortunately, even today, it is not clear in many jurisdictions whether they consider domain names as property, as that has not been tested in court. George Kirikos:@mary: for the most important disputes (.com, at the registry level), it is property. And it is in Ontario, for my domains. :-) [although, I have no domains conflicting with Article 6ter names, so no potential conflicts I ever see] Mary Wong:Hi George, I'm just saying that, outside the US and Ontario, it really isn't that clear. George Kirikos:Option 4 relates to option #1, though. George Kirikos:i.e. default is option #1, but option #2 for some names. :-) George Kirikos:Yes. George Kirikos:Maybe someone should phone Paul K? George Kirikos:(if he wants to get it done by the weekend?) Mary Wong:We will follow up with Paul, and ask for a response to the WG by Monday. George Kirikos:Option 6 relates to option #3, too. George Kirikos:Next meeting in 2 weeks? Or was it 3? Michelle DeSmyter:August 24th George Kirikos:So, we'll have a draft final report the week of August 17th, and then a call to discuss it on August 24th. Mary Wong:@George, that's the idea ... we'll do our best to get a document out in good time before the 24th George Kirikos:Consensus. Mary Wong:We will do an alternative timeline, with either no or a shorter public comment period? George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ George Kirikos:June 19th was the last email to that mailing list. George Kirikos:No, this is the other small group, with their separate mailing list. George Kirikos:https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc Paul Tattersfield:bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks.....have a nice 3 weeks. :-)

1 0

Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 3 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

Dear all, For the Working Group call scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday 3 August at 1600 UTC), and in accordance with the draft Timeline to PDP Completion that was discussed on the call last week, we anticipate that the agenda for the call will be: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of the various options relating to Recommendation 4 that have been suggested by Working Group members, with a view toward concluding discussion of this topic and agreeing on a way forward 3. Next steps/next meeting Staff notes that there have been some additional emails from George Kirikos since the last Working Group call, outlining a possible Option 6 and commenting on Option 2 (see the mailing list archives here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/thread.html) We have therefore updated the Options document from last week, to include George’s Option 6 – it is attached for your review and we will have it displayed in the Adobe Connect room for the call as well as uploaded to the Working Group wiki. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:44 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July Dear all, For the next Working Group call, scheduled for Thursday 27 July at 1600 UTC, the co-chairs would like to continue discussions on the topics from last week, i.e. the additional options to Recommendation #4 that were raised by George Kirikos and Paul Keating (and which are being referred to as Options 3, 4 and 5), as well as the necessary elements of any arbitration option that may be incorporated into Recommendation #4. You will find the documents that were used on the call last week for both these topics attached. In addition, the Working Group is being asked to decide if it wishes to publish its draft Final Report for public comment, as was suggested in the community session at ICANN59. Staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop a proposed timeline for the completion of our work to take into account that option as well as the possibility of canceling a few calls due to the unavailability of one or both the co-chairs in August – please see the attached for a sense of the dates. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 19:30 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Arbitration Elements paper, Options 3 & 4, plus new suggestion Dear Working Group members, Please find attached, as requested, an updated version of the Co-Chairs’ Paper on Arbitration Elements. The updates were made based on suggestions and discussions on the last Working Group call of 12 July 2017. As also noted on that call, the next Working Group call will include a further discussion of the updated paper, as well as suggsted Options #3 and #4 (to the Working Group’s preliminary recommendation 4). Staff has taken the liberty of extracting the relevant portions of these two suggestions, as well as adding the latest suggestion from Paul Keating to the mailing list a few days ago, and compiling them into the second attached document for your convenient reference. Briefly, here is the origin of the additional suggestions: * Option 3 (from Paul Keating, suggested on the Working Group call of 15 June 2017): https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw * Option 4 (suggested by George Kirikos via email to the mailing list on 27 June): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html * Additional alternative suggestion from Paul Keating via email to the Working Group mailing list on 14 July: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html We hope the documents are useful. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

- ACTION ITEM: Update Impact Analysis Document
by Steve Chan Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

Dear WG Members, During last week’s WG meeting on 27 July, it was suggested that the impact analysis document be updated to include additional options that have been raised beyond just options one and two. However, staff’s understanding is that this action item is expected once the WG pares down the options, which are now up to six, to a core set of options that it feels are worth consideration for final recommendation. If this understanding is incorrect and for instance, the WG is anticipating that the document would include all six options and should be made available in the near future, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

4 4

The Dangers of Option #2: lack of multiple levels of appeal
by George Kirikos July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Hi folks, During one of the conference calls a few weeks ago, I mentioned the Moobitalk case in the French courts, which went through *multiple* levels of the courts, before the correct decision was achieved by the domain name owner, see: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a… http://www.dreyfus.fr/en/marques/france-a-domain-name-transferred-by-udrp-d… Similarly, the important Tucows v Renner case went through multiple levels of the courts, going to the Ontario Court of Appeal: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca548/2011onca548.html Furthermore, Renner even appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, although their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, see: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii28261/2012canlii28261… fully exercising their rights to attempt to appeal to the highest possible court in the land. Today I stumbled upon another domain dispute in the German courts: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55be88b3-76bd-41f8-ac0c-ea552… while not involving a UDRP, apparently (the decision appears to have been anonymized, as the domain name isn't listed, and the parties aren't identified), it too went through multiple levels of the courts (the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, after starting in the Frankfurt Regional Court). These cases all demonstrate the inherent dangers of Option #2, which only permits the binding arbitration itself, and no further appeals. One of the protections that ensures due process and holds judges accountable is the ability to appeal their judgements. A judge or arbitrator or panelist whose decisions cannot be appealed is potentially far more dangerous, prone to reckless and incorrect decisions, because their level of accountability is lower (thus the higher level of scrutiny for Supreme Court judges in most nations, combined with the "dilution" of individual power by having 9 judges in total at the Supreme Court of Canada or the Supreme Court of the United States. Given the desire of most active judges to advance in their careers, to be appointed to a higher court, a history of overturned decisions on appeal does not bode well for them, and acts as a further incentive to get things right. These dangers aren't present with Option #1. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Option #6 -- adjusting the UDRP language of paragraph 4(k) itself
by George Kirikos July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Hi folks, Over the weekend, I was thinking about some of the topics that came up in the last 2 or 3 conference calls, especially as it relates to how registrars handle court challenges to a UDRP dispute, and I believe I found a new option, let's call it Option #6, which might be a path forward. Different opinions were put forth regarding how a registrar might handle an "in rem" or "quasi in rem" court challenge brought by a UDRP respondent (i.e. the domain name registrant). In my view (and after talking to my own registrar), the registrar would likely maintain the status quo, until *all* litigation concerning the domain name was complete. Others held the view that registrars might not do that, given that paragraph 4(k) of the rules: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en only specifically contemplates "in personam" court cases brought by the UDRP respondent (domain owner) against the party who filed the UDRP (i.e. the UDRP complainant). The relevant part of paragraph 4(k) is: "We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that *****you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted****** under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. " (emphasis added, via the asterisks) However, if the wording was changed very slightly, it would clarify the situation with regards to "in rem" and/or "quasi in rem" suits, i.e. the language in the asterisk section above could become: "you have commenced a lawsuit ***concerning the domain name**** in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted" i.e. by changing "against the complainant" to "concerning the domain name", the latter language would cover not only in personam actions brought against the UDRP complainant, but also cover both in rem and quasi in rem actions too. [Aside: the language of the UDRP is actually very poorly worded; by the language of 4(k) as it stands now, it doesn't even say that the lawsuit against the UDRP complainant even needs to relate to the domain name under dispute! i.e. you could sue for *any* cause of action, even unrelated to the domain name, and by a strict reading of the 4(k) language, the registrar has to not implement the decision! We'll need to fix that in 2018 or 2019 or beyond, in the RPM working group PDP...] As discussed previously, with an in rem or quasi in rem case, the only issue in dispute is the fate of the domain name itself, and thus avoids issues of "immunity" entirely for the IGO. The IGO is not a named party (but would receive notice of the property dispute, so it could intervene if it wants to). Furthermore, the "best" way to proceed in such a court action by a domain name registrant, in the event of a UDRP filed by an IGO, would involve both the in rem *and* in personam filings, in a single lawsuit (when I spoke with one my lawyers last week about this scenario, she advised that it should be possible to have both methods in a single lawsuit; indeed, judicial economy would prefer that to two separate cases). Now, if we go back to the scenario where we are concerned about "what happens if an IGO successfully asserts immunity in the courts", that would only result in a dismissal of the in personam aspect of the lawsuit. It would leave unaffected the in rem or quasi in rem aspect of the case. Thus, the domain name owner still has a suitable forum *in the courts* to determine the fate of the domain name, and would not be required to go to any binding arbitration to appeal the UDRP decision. The court action would still be there, in its in rem or quasi in rem context. So, I put this forth as "Option #6", and ask that a few minutes of time be allocated to discussing it at the next meeting (after Paul Keating discusses any revisions to Option #5 that he might have). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

A clean appraisal regarding NGOs
by Paul Keating July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

All, After much consideration a light has suddenly appeared. We need do nothing in this case at all. The answers exist in the current Policy. Here is a summary of my proposal. I ask that it be discussed at the next call and if necessary we retain counsel to determine if it is legally sound. The current UDRP requires that complainants waive any claim as against the ADR provider. There is no similar provision for respondents. The result is that Complainants waive claims against that ADR provider. Respondents do not. Complainants: (xiii) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature (in any electronic format) of the Complainant or its authorized representative: "Complainant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the domain-name holder and waives all such claims and remedies against (a) the dispute-resolution provider and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the registrar, (c) the registry administrator, and (d) the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents." "Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument." Respondents: (viii) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature (in any electronic format) of the Respondent or its authorized representative: "Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument." The current UDRP provides for a Mutual Jurisdiction (MJ) designation. All complainants MUST designate an MJ. An MJ is (generally): Location of registrar per ICANN Location of registrant as stated in the WHOIS There is some uncertainty as to whether the Mutual Jurisdiction selection constitutes a waiver of Sovereign Immunity. An order of an ADR provider must be complied with unless a losing respondent commences a legal action in the MJ within a 10-business-day period. The issue with NGOs is that they do not wish to subject themselves to potential liability of national courts - Sovereign Immunity. Legally, there are 3 potentially interested parties: (1) Respondent, (2) Complainant (NGO), and (3) ADR Provider. A court may generally only issue orders directing an interested party to do (or refrain from doing) something. This might be, ³pay the claimant damages². It might be ³refrain from doing XXX². Very few courts will order a person to DO something other than pay damages. Courts are most likely to order an interested party to NOT DO something. The reason for this is that the standard for ordering a person to do something is higher than the standard to actual NOT do something. This bears relation to unique legal issues like specific performance (an order that a party must do something). Such remedies are rare in the US although more normal in Europe. What I propose is that we essentially ignore the NGOs in this issue and instead focus on the other parties having an interest in this issue and thus subject to the court¹s order the ADR provider. The current UDRP obligates the complainant to waive claims against the ADR provider to protect the ADR provider from damages resulting from its decisions. There is no similar waiver by the Respondent. The common practice amongst attorneys is to name any person or entity that potentially has a relationship to the potential remedy. This is done so that the court can issue an order that has the actual force of law. The court can only order people to do something if they have appeared before the court or had an opportunity to do so. In the context of a typical UDRP, there are 4 parties that have potential control over the remedy or an interest: 1. Registrant 2. Complainant 3. Registrar 4. ADR Provider Typically, in post-UDRP an attorney would name as defendants only the complainant and the registrar. The reason for this is that in most post-UDRP decisions the ADR is seen as a neutral party. However, in US jurisdiction, court orders are often challenged by naming the court as a defendant. The purpose of this practice is to ensure that any appeals court decision is properly directed at the lower court ordering it to do (or not do) something. The most common remedy sought is to invalidate a prior order of the lower court. Thus, the lower court is often named as a real party in interest so that any decision by the appeals court can name the lower court ordering it to invalidate or enforce (or modify) its prior decision. My proposal recognizes that the ADR provider is a necessary party to any post-UDRP litigation so that the court can actually order the appropriate remedy. As a result, the participation of the NGO in the litigation should have no legal bearing on whether or not the underlying UDRP decision is or is not enforced. Any recognition of the NGO¹s sovereign immunity should only impact whether or not the NGO is liable in any manner to the respondent (plaintiff). Thus, a plaintiff who names the ADR provider and Registrar should be able to obtain a court order granting relief (e.g. a confirmation that the domain name should not be transferred) without regard to whether the NGO did nor did not participate in the litigation. In other words, any claim by the NGO concerning Sovereign Immunity would have no impact on whether the domain were transferred. Indeed its only impact would be to prevent any order that the NGO do (e.g. pay damages) or refrain from doing (stop issuing demands) anything. The point is that WE DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING to address the concerns of the NGOs as presented to the Working Group. Sorry it took me so long to remember basic legal theory. Anyone having an issue with the above analysis PLEASE feel free to poke holes all over it. Regards Paul

3 4

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 27 July 2017
by Terri Agnew July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-27jul17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1y6ocluh8o/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b 6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d> https://participate.icann.org/p1y6ocluh8o/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Osvaldo Novoa David Maher Apologies: Jay Chapman Mason Cole Paul Keating ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/_gAhB> https://community.icann.org/x/_gAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 27 July 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_- 5FgAhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ -5FgAhB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFp CIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3yS Cc&s=IBftNSm05XpP08pHWOBoOLjHnc_FF28R354O2tgyjAc&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=IB ftNSm05XpP08pHWOBoOLjHnc_FF28R354O2tgyjAc&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Petter Rindforth:@George: Not surprised to see that you are already "on board" George Kirikos:Hey Petter. I just logged in a few seconds before you did. :-) George Kirikos:How are things in Sweden today? Petter Rindforth:Nice and sunny George Kirikos:Perhaps blasting out an email reminder might be wise? Petter Rindforth:Good idea - Mary, can you send a reminder, please George Kirikos:It looks like it already went out. Mary Wong:Terri is way faster than I am George Kirikos:There must be a way to automate those, to make it even easier. :-) Mary Wong:@George, I just realized that I did not update the Options 3, 4 and 5 document to add the missing bit from your proposal for Option 4 that I inadvertently omitted the first time around. My apologies! (but I think you already noted that last week, and please feel free to do so again this week if need be.) George Kirikos:That's alright, Mary. Mary Wong:Thanks George! Philip Corwin:Hello all Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all! George Kirikos:I saw Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets last night. This PDP is like "ICANN and the Working Group of a Thousand Days" (and counting) :-) Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:Hey Paul. George Kirikos:Hi Phil & Osvaldo too. (sorry, has stepped away and missed your entrances!) George Kirikos:*has = had George Kirikos:Perhaps dispose of Option 5 quickly? I think the premise was incorrect, as I pointed out at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000785.html (i.e. there is still a certification by the respondent, albeit via the providers' supplemental rules) Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves George Kirikos:Page 2 of the doc on screen. Mary Wong:Paul Keating's new proposal (Option 5) starts on Page 2 George Kirikos:"3. Alternative Proposal" = Option 5. George Kirikos:It's obviously wrong, though, see the email I sent. There is a waiver. George Kirikos:Understand the fairness aspect. George Kirikos:His proposal did have a saving grace, if the respondent sued in court immediately without agreeing to the certification. See my comments at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000786.html Mary Wong:@Petter, you may need to reboot AC. The document is on the screen in AC. Terri Agnew:@Petter, you may need to log out and back in, or try a different browser Philip Corwin:I definitely see it on my screen George Kirikos:It's definitely in the Supplemental Rules, Petter. George Kirikos:Is that the Pirate Bay case? Mary Wong:In the UK, for instance, you can ask the court to order specific performance (mentioned by Paul), but that is usually only when damages are considered inadequate as a primary remedy. George Kirikos:That Swedish case is discussed at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__torrentfreak.com_court- 2Dorders-2Dpirate-2Dbay-2Ddomains-2Dforfeited-2Dstate-2D160512_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__torrentfreak.com_court -2Dorders-2Dpirate-2Dbay-2Ddomains-2Dforfeited-2Dstate-2D160512_&d=DwICaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0 AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=UMEvMm5KKdiK69 VDt4tH8LsdCT997HxHECCBAfGq0yU&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=UM EvMm5KKdiK69VDt4tH8LsdCT997HxHECCBAfGq0yU&e= George Kirikos:No, Paul K. was referencing the UDRP rules, see: Complainant: 3(b)(xiii) George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en Paul Tattersfield:I don't believe in most jurisdictions that the mutual jurisdiction clause would extend to a waiver of execution Mary Wong:@Paul T (taking off my staff hat and putting back my (creaky and ancient) lawyer hat), I think that's right. George Kirikos: 5(c)(viii) is for the respondent. George Kirikos:Yes, I'm sure the updated UDRP will change that language. Probably just an oversight when it was implemented, to skip the correct certification language within the rules. George Kirikos:That's why the supplemental rules are fixing it. George Kirikos:Actually, Paul K. *did* cite the paragraphs, see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html George Kirikos:Complainants: (xiii) George Kirikos:Respondents: (viii) George Kirikos:See his email. :-) HE just missed the fact that the ADR providers stuff the language into their Supplemental Rules, to cover the respondent. George Kirikos:Was Option 2 amended? THe PDF was dated July 16th, though? Philip Corwin:And my point is that if respondents are being required by Supplemental Rules to waive future claims against the UDRP provider themn why not the Complainant as well? Whether such mutual waiver is relevant to our work is a separate issue. George Kirikos:The Risk Analysis would allow a great structured approach to analyzing the Options, so they can be ranked by each participant in the PDP, in my opinion. George Kirikos:It was already started for Options 1 & 2. George Kirikos:GAC list is meaningless. It's a court that determines if we ever get to Option 2, i.e. if they "buy" the IGO's claimed immunity. Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1 Mary Wong:@George, yes, that is one of the permutations, if indeed arbitration is to be recommended as a step after the court. George Kirikos:No, not in relation to Option 2. Paul Tattersfield:Given it's the same principle matter can an IGO even assert immunity? If they brought an action in a court they couldn't then cite immunity if the defendant challengeed an initial determination. George Kirikos:@Paul T: The IGO is defending the lawsuit (domain name owner brings the lawsuit). IGO is asserting immunity as a defense to the lawsuit. Mary Wong:@Paul, right - the IGO will not initiate the court action as that essentially wipes out jurisdictional immunity. George Kirikos:No messages to that list since June. George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ George Kirikos:Here's the proposed timeline: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170726/957d8ae 1/PDPCompletionTimeline-DRAFT-0001.pdf George Kirikos:It contemplates finishing in December. George Kirikos:That schedule has fewer than 10 scheduled WG meetings, so we're in the home stretch. Mary Wong:You can end the public comment period before 4 Nov, if appropriate, and still do a session at ICANN60 before finalizing the report. Paul Tattersfield:Same expert? George Kirikos:Expert on what question, though? Mary Wong:@Petter, yes, that was our assumption - that the WG will not choose to consult another legal expert, this time on the arbitration elements or some other legal topic. George Kirikos:I think we've thoroughly researched all the topics at this point. Mary Wong:@George, we were thinking that the arbitration issue may merit feedback - whether as an expert opinion or just through seeking public comment. Mary Wong:(as we are not experts in international arbitration) George Kirikos:ICANN itself has arbitration elements within the new gTLD program for registry operators. George Kirikos:So, it's within their knowledge base, presumably. George Kirikos:Although, they specify a provider. If Option 2 is adopted (directly, or via a part of Option 4), it may be more broad, though, e.g. any suitable arbitration provider, not necessarily picked/certified by ICANN. George Kirikos:Although, I think Option 1 is still the best pick, simply nullify the UDRP decision in the event an IGO successfully asserts immunity. George Kirikos:Option 1 is easier to implement, too. :-) George Kirikos:When you have ICANN oversight, you get situations where UDRP panelists involve themselves in reverse domain name hijackings, with ICANN sitting on their hands. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_2016_ 05_20_udrp-2Dpanelist-2Dreverse-2Ddomain-2Dname-2Dhijacking_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_2016 _05_20_udrp-2Dpanelist-2Dreverse-2Ddomain-2Dname-2Dhijacking_&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY 1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIg n-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=Oad9plAZXh1vPYAE7 LqTOpuF9_5j5pPadOJgBrlswoo&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=Oa d9plAZXh1vPYAE7LqTOpuF9_5j5pPadOJgBrlswoo&e= George Kirikos:Online system?!?!? George Kirikos:That was already the UDRP ---- this is supposed to mimic the courts, e.g. discovery, cross-examination, etc. Philip Corwin:If online means a video meeting then perhaps. If it means just submitting papers then no. George Kirikos:Here's a couple of Canadian arbitration providers, as listed by one of Canada's largest law firms: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blg.com_en_News-2DAnd-2D Publications_Publication-5F4034 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blg.com_en_News-2DAnd-2 DPublications_Publication-5F4034&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJ ms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oP jqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=ZiafRClRNh57WCKDC7mp3r9RtgZQJ4jW5JSsMrrS5SQ&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=IBivpYQhwy1Dq-oPjqG8e7P3HxCKKQsqWHty3N3ySCc&s=Zi afRClRNh57WCKDC7mp3r9RtgZQJ4jW5JSsMrrS5SQ&e= George Kirikos:(BLG.com is one of my law firms, for disclosure) George Kirikos:Do we have a decision as to how long the comment period will be, and also whether we are going to have it? George Kirikos:i.e. the 2 chairs weighed in, but we didn't ask the group or vote, etc. Philip Corwin: We will make decisions on whether to have a comment period after we decide on elements of the final report. Premature now George Kirikos:Last week we have 11 or 12. George Kirikos:*had Mary Wong:Staff will send out the action items from this meeting, drawing WG members' and Paul K's attention to furthering discussion on the Options (and Paul K for Option 5). George Kirikos:We can have email discussions too, when there aren't scheduled working group meetings. George Kirikos:So, work can still get done. Philip Corwin:Yes, we can have email exchanges throughout August George Kirikos:Have a nice day, folks! Philip Corwin:Bye all Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye

1 0