Hi Jim, Very generous. Staff - please make that change to the statement I submitted, if it is deemed that is the correct way to represent these signatories. However, if any individual attorney or any individual at all wants to sign to any statement in their appropriate capacity as a member of the ICANN community, I strenuously object to ANY attempt to stop them from doing so. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
All,
We are happy to be listed as SGR.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: > They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the > submission. > > Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but > companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible > when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated > statement. > > If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you > can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that > information. > > K > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: >> >> Kiran >> >> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be >> referenced? >> >> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission >> >> Regards >> >> Michele >> >> >> -- >> Mr Michele Neylon >> Blacknight Solutions >> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >> http://www.blacknight.host/ >> http://blog.blacknight.com/ >> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage >> http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 >> 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> >> Social: http://mneylon.social >> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish >> ------------------------------- >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>> >>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma >>> rkm >>> on >>> itor.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >>> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in >>> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >>> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Mary >>>> >>>> Mary Wong >>>> Senior Policy Director >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892> >>>> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> >>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>>> ark >>>> mo >>>> nitor.com>> >>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>>> Cc: >>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>>> >>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >>>> >>>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>>> thy >>>>> @k >>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>>> is." >>>>> >>>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>>> >>>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>>> above-referenced white >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>>>> ial >>>>> _U >>>>> se_-_ >>>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>>> consideration." >>>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>>>> in the main report. >>>>> >>>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>>> speaks only for its group. >>>>> Tx, >>>>> Kathy >>>>> : >>>>> Hi Kathy, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> John Horton >>>>> President and CEO, LegitScript >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Follow LegitScript: >>>>> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | >>>>> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | >>>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | >>>>> YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | >>>>> Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> | >>>>> Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>>> thy >>>>> @k >>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>>>> version. >>>>> >>>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kathy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> --- >>>>> -- >>>>> ----- >>>>> ------- >>>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>>> >>>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>>> discussed. >>>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> --- >>>>> -- >>>>> ----- >>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>>>> within the WG >>>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>>> the Interim Report). >>>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>>> >>>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>>> event >>>>> that a >>>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>>> action)? >>>>> >>>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>>> every >>>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>>> >>>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>>> allowed >>>>> and >>>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>>> >>>>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>>>> requests >>>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>>> Article 3, >>>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>>> >>>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>>> Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is >>>>> registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting >>>>> commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P >>>>> services[1][1], there was disagreement over whether domain >>>>> names that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. >>>>> the sale or exchange of goods or >>>>> services) >>>>> should be prohibited from using P/P services. >>>>> While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is >>>>> necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants >>>>> of such domain names should not be able to use or continue >>>>> using proxy or privacy services. [1] Other members of the WG >>>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>>> financial transactions directly. >>>>> Accordingly, >>>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>>>> for this reason. >>>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>>> For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to >>>>> limit access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, >>>>> the following text was proposed to clarify and define their >>>>> position: ³domains used for online financial transactions for >>>>> commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy >>>>> registrations.² This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>>>> submitted that: >>>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>>> € Should registrants of domain names associated with >>>>> commercial >>>>> activities and which are used for online financial transactions >>>>> be prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and >>>>> proxy services? >>>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>>> scope and >>>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>>> mai >>>>> lt >>>>> >>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>>> mai >>>>> lt >>>>> >>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.