November 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Clarification on my comments about scope on the call that just ended
by icannlists Nov. 15, 2017

Nov. 15, 2017

I believe that my imprecision may have caused some concern. I have no problem evaluating whether or not we can find cases where the policies and procedures/rules underlying an RPM have been misapplied resulting in an off kilter decision. If there are in fact examples (and that is an important “if” since we do not want to conjure examples from the hypothetical world), it is appropriate to see if there are changes possible to the policies and procedures/rules underlying the RPM to make sure it doesn’t happen again. That said, however, was not what was being discussed on the call (or at least not purely); for example, a request by some to react retroactively to 2009 issue raised about the Forum (noting here that 2009 preceded the URS itself). I do believe that looking at Provider behavior generally or looking at their compliance with any ICANN contract/MOU specifically is outside of our scope. So, let’s stay focused on RPMs as applied by Providers and avoid anti-provider witch hunts generally. I hope this helps clarify. Thanks all! Best, Paul ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 15, 2017

Nov. 15, 2017

Thanks for the feedback Brian and we do note the challenges. If I recall correctly (and others can correct me if I am wrong) I think the original time was the consensus of a Doodle poll. As always when using these polls while the time may have worked for a majority of respondents, it is unlikely that it worked for everyone. Kind regards, Julie From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:10 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls Thanks Julie, >From Europe, moving the start of these calls from 6pm to 7pm (ending at 8:30 pm) makes consistent participation more difficult, though we will do our best. If anything, moving the calls an hour in the other direction would be better. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 7:50 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls Dear Working Group members, Staff would like to point out that following the time change from daylight to standard time, it has been customary to change the time in UTC in order to preserve the original time of the meetings so that they stay at the same time as they were for most zones. Thus, although today’s call (15 November) was set at 1700 UTC, if we followed our usual custom it would revert to 1800 UTC in order that the time remains at 1000 PST, 1300 EST, etc. Note that some Working Group members did alert us to the fact that they assume the call would stay the same time and that they have conflicts if it is an hour earlier (as it was today). Unless there are objections, staff would like to suggest that we follow that custom for future meetings of this Working Group, by which the next call would be at 1800 UTC on 22 November for 90 minutes. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 15, 2017

Nov. 15, 2017

Dear Working Group members, Staff would like to point out that following the time change from daylight to standard time, it has been customary to change the time in UTC in order to preserve the original time of the meetings so that they stay at the same time as they were for most zones. Thus, although today’s call (15 November) was set at 1700 UTC, if we followed our usual custom it would revert to 1800 UTC in order that the time remains at 1000 PST, 1300 EST, etc. Note that some Working Group members did alert us to the fact that they assume the call would stay the same time and that they have conflicts if it is an hour earlier (as it was today). Unless there are objections, staff would like to suggest that we follow that custom for future meetings of this Working Group, by which the next call would be at 1800 UTC on 22 November for 90 minutes. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Hi Brian, I think the approach suggested by the chairs is to not form a sub team, but for the full Working Group to refine the questions. We can discuss this approach further on tomorrow’s call. Kind regards, Julie From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:28 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November Julie, On the understanding that the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration, I would like (for WIPO) to be included as an observer to that Sub Team. Thanks, Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham(a)wipo.int | www.wipo.int[wipo.int] From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 13 November 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review feedback from transcripts of the URS sessions held at ICANN60 and proposed new questions/comments 3. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, this is a continued discussion of the charter questions related to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), following the discussions at the URS sessions at ICANN60. In particular, the aim of the discussion is to refine (i.e. modify, edit, delete, clarify, or if necessary add to) the existing questions that were listed in our PDP Charter relating to the URS. To facilitate this discussion, the attached documents are provided for reference: the URS charter question slides used for the ICANN60 URS sessions; a compilation of excerpts from the URS session transcripts with general and specific comments and questions concerning the URS and charter questions. In addition to the excerpts from the transcripts, staff has incorporated comments and questions proposed on the Working Group list over the past week subsequent to ICANN60. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Correction: The call is on Wednesday, 15 November. Best, Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 13 November 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review feedback from transcripts of the URS sessions held at ICANN60 and proposed new questions/comments 3. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, this is a continued discussion of the charter questions related to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), following the discussions at the URS sessions at ICANN60. In particular, the aim of the discussion is to refine (i.e. modify, edit, delete, clarify, or if necessary add to) the existing questions that were listed in our PDP Charter relating to the URS. To facilitate this discussion, the attached documents are provided for reference: the URS charter question slides used for the ICANN60 URS sessions; a compilation of excerpts from the URS session transcripts with general and specific comments and questions concerning the URS and charter questions. In addition to the excerpts from the transcripts, staff has incorporated comments and questions proposed on the Working Group list over the past week subsequent to ICANN60. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 13, 2017

Nov. 13, 2017

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 13 November 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review feedback from transcripts of the URS sessions held at ICANN60 and proposed new questions/comments 3. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, this is a continued discussion of the charter questions related to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), following the discussions at the URS sessions at ICANN60. In particular, the aim of the discussion is to refine (i.e. modify, edit, delete, clarify, or if necessary add to) the existing questions that were listed in our PDP Charter relating to the URS. To facilitate this discussion, the attached documents are provided for reference: the URS charter question slides used for the ICANN60 URS sessions; a compilation of excerpts from the URS session transcripts with general and specific comments and questions concerning the URS and charter questions. In addition to the excerpts from the transcripts, staff has incorporated comments and questions proposed on the Working Group list over the past week subsequent to ICANN60. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
by Brian Winterfeldt Nov. 11, 2017

Nov. 11, 2017

Dear all: We propose an additional question on "Whether any superfluous overlap is created between: 1. A respondent's right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus 2. A respondent's right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus 3. A respondent's right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination." As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of "compromises" that were not well thought out together in practice at the time. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Hi, all- For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.? Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Staff is pleased to provide the following action items and links from the RPM sessions at ICANN60. These also are posted to the Working Group wiki meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017+Meetings[community.ic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> by meeting date. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> This session was a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). The session was open to all to attend. Action Items: * Post Table 2 to the ICANN meeting schedule (DONE). * UDRP data - Once we have a better sense of how to get the data, and what to get, staff can develop a timeline to produce usable data. * In addition to research and blog, should we get a sampling of different types of domains in terms of sunrise and general availability pricing - look at the charter question as to whether this prevented someone from participating in sunrise? * Question 8 re: semantics of programming that can be used to test historical data to see how many claims notices can be generated - examples: "fat-finger typos". Rules can be applied for each type of mistake. Need to determine these rules before requesting the data so we don't end up with too many. Put this on a back burner until we do more of the quantitative analysis on URS and UDRP data. Need to answer the question: What types of data should generate claims notices? Are there other ways we can get the data to inform that analysis? Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion - Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff's presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. Action Items: * Table 4: Possible to get a column showing when these domains launched for the top 30 shown in the chart. * Staff will review the data charts to make sure the total numbers are consistent. In Table 6, the number for default (no response filed) does not show the number for which the claimant did not prevail: staff will develop an additional table (per the added note below the current table). * Staff likely will review/refine tables 8 and 9, and also get more detail on average of duration. * Staff will produce another version of the data in a couple of weeks. * Staff will fetch WHOIS data for these URS cases to help address charter questions. The data will be useful both to analyze Trademark Claims and URS. Newer cases (e.g. less than a year) will be relatively easy to obtain. Older ones will be more of a challenge. Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbK7/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team briefed our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting. Action Items: * Staff will forward DMPM request to the CCT-RT. * The RPM PDP WG will share with the CCT Review Team what their plan is with regard to the TMCH to ensure that we are headed in right direction to meet Recommendation 42. * The CCT Review Team will follow up with the Analysis Group about the questions concerning costs. * Staff will forward to CCT-RT Support Team the recording/transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session once they are available. * Staff will post the AC transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session on the wiki workspace (DONE). * Staff will post the CCT-RT slides to the wiki workspace & meeting schedule webpage (DONE). Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbF6/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> and This session followed on the introductory Saturday session. The Working Group and community members were invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group's review of the Charter questions for the URS. As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration. Action Items: (referenced slides are posted to the wiki and also at the above link) Slide 4: * "Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?" [first bullet] * Comments: Understanding is that in that case (before a complaint is filed), the registrant then renews for up to 10 years, in which case, if he/she loses a URS proceeding then the suspension could last for as long as 10 years. Slide 6: * Question on sanctions needs to be rephrased ("what sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS for Trademark owners") - also doesn't mention sanctions for repeat offenders. Exercise for the Sub Team to find the context/origins for the questions, for which staff can help. * Split the sections into two for sake of clarity. * Sounds like the need for training/education needs to be raised (training registrants in rights and protections). Slide 7: * Request to strike the first question: "Assess the benefit of the Arbitration Forums Self-Reviews..." * Think about what is the financial model for the URS? Slide 8: * Consider bifurcating this question. 1) whether administering consistently; 2) if the supplemental rules are inconsistent. Encourage the WG to look into the relationship between ICANN and providers. * Question bullet 4: strike the question or comprehensively re-write. Try to find the context. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************

5 4

Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 9, 2017

Nov. 9, 2017

Dear all, Staff is pleased to provide the following action items and links from the RPM sessions at ICANN60. These also are posted to the Working Group wiki meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017+Meetings by meeting date. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… This session was a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). The session was open to all to attend. Action Items: Post Table 2 to the ICANN meeting schedule (DONE). UDRP data – Once we have a better sense of how to get the data, and what to get, staff can develop a timeline to produce usable data. In addition to research and blog, should we get a sampling of different types of domains in terms of sunrise and general availability pricing – look at the charter question as to whether this prevented someone from participating in sunrise? Question 8 re: semantics of programming that can be used to test historical data to see how many claims notices can be generated – examples: “fat-finger typos”. Rules can be applied for each type of mistake. Need to determine these rules before requesting the data so we don’t end up with too many. Put this on a back burner until we do more of the quantitative analysis on URS and UDRP data. Need to answer the question: What types of data should generate claims notices? Are there other ways we can get the data to inform that analysis? Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion – Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff’s presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. Action Items: Table 4: Possible to get a column showing when these domains launched for the top 30 shown in the chart. Staff will review the data charts to make sure the total numbers are consistent. In Table 6, the number for default (no response filed) does not show the number for which the claimant did not prevail: staff will develop an additional table (per the added note below the current table). Staff likely will review/refine tables 8 and 9, and also get more detail on average of duration. Staff will produce another version of the data in a couple of weeks. Staff will fetch WHOIS data for these URS cases to help address charter questions. The data will be useful both to analyze Trademark Claims and URS. Newer cases (e.g. less than a year) will be relatively easy to obtain. Older ones will be more of a challenge. Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbK7/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team briefed our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting. Action Items: Staff will forward DMPM request to the CCT-RT. The RPM PDP WG will share with the CCT Review Team what their plan is with regard to the TMCH to ensure that we are headed in right direction to meet Recommendation 42. The CCT Review Team will follow up with the Analysis Group about the questions concerning costs. Staff will forward to CCT-RT Support Team the recording/transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session once they are available. Staff will post the AC transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session on the wiki workspace (DONE). Staff will post the CCT-RT slides to the wiki workspace & meeting schedule webpage (DONE). Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbF6/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… and This session followed on the introductory Saturday session. The Working Group and community members were invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group’s review of the Charter questions for the URS. As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration. Action Items: (referenced slides are posted to the wiki and also at the above link) Slide 4: “Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?” [first bullet] Comments: Understanding is that in that case (before a complaint is filed), the registrant then renews for up to 10 years, in which case, if he/she loses a URS proceeding then the suspension could last for as long as 10 years. Slide 6: Question on sanctions needs to be rephrased (“what sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS for Trademark owners”) – also doesn’t mention sanctions for repeat offenders. Exercise for the Sub Team to find the context/origins for the questions, for which staff can help. Split the sections into two for sake of clarity. Sounds like the need for training/education needs to be raised (training registrants in rights and protections). Slide 7: Request to strike the first question: “Assess the benefit of the Arbitration Forums Self-Reviews...” Think about what is the financial model for the URS? Slide 8: Consider bifurcating this question. 1) whether administering consistently; 2) if the supplemental rules are inconsistent. Encourage the WG to look into the relationship between ICANN and providers. Question bullet 4: strike the question or comprehensively re-write. Try to find the context.

2 3

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Change in Status
by Paul Keating Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Congratulations Phil. You will be a great asset for them. I will, of course, miss working with you on the Wgs. Paul From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:30 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Change in Status > Dear WG Members: > > I have today, November 6, 2017, terminated all operations of the Virtualaw LLC > consultancy and commenced employment in the legal department of Verisign, Inc. > in the position of Policy Counsel. > > I intend to continue in my co-chair position, and will update my SOI prior to > our next call. > > With best regards, Philip > > > Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal > Virtualaw LLC > 1155 F Street, NW > Suite 1050 > Washington, DC 20004 > 202-559-8597/Direct > 202-559-8750/Fax > 202-255-6172/Cell > > Twitter: @VlawDC > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Change in Status
by Phil Corwin Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Dear WG Members: I have today, November 6, 2017, terminated all operations of the Virtualaw LLC consultancy and commenced employment in the legal department of Verisign, Inc. in the position of Policy Counsel. I intend to continue in my co-chair position, and will update my SOI prior to our next call. With best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0