April 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

2 1

FW: QUESTION FOR YOUR RESPONSE: Additional Charter questions for Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims?
by Mary Wong April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

Dear all, It does not appear that Paul’s response got through to the mailing list, so I’m forwarding it and the original staff email (addressed to the two current Sub Teams) below. Cheers Mary From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com> Date: Friday, April 14, 2017 at 23:15 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] QUESTION FOR YOUR RESPONSE: Additional Charter questions for Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims? Thanks Mary. I’m copying in the entire PDP list as I think this is not a question just for these two subgroups. I have no issue moving bullet point three around since it is a Phase 1 question. I do, however, have issues with moving bullet points 1 and 2 out of Phase 2 and into Phase 1. When the questions were developed, they were read with Phase 2 (UDRP) in mind. The questions are heavily weighted towards certain outcomes as it is, but in my opinion, were more tolerable as read against the backdrop of thousands of decided UDRP cases. Moving them to the Phase 1 landscape, and thus out of their initial context, makes them too weighted to presumed outcomes. If the goal is to examine these concepts in Phase 1, we would need to rewrite these questions to be far more neutral than they appear in order for the Phase 1 review to be meaningful. I also think they even if we do rewrite and move them to Phase 1 ex post facto, they should remain in Phase 2 as well. Thanks! Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:50 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] QUESTION FOR YOUR RESPONSE: Additional Charter questions for Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims? Dear all, Based on directions from the Sub Team on Trademark Claims, staff went back to review all our PDP Charter questions, to make sure that all questions relevant to that particular RPM are captured for the Sub Team (even if they were categorized previously under a different RPM). As a result, we wanted to ask you if you think the following two questions (listed under the UDRP section) should instead be moved to and addressed as part of the Sunrise and/or Claims review, or if you think they should be more appropriately addressed elsewhere: · Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. · Are last names and geographic places adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? In addition, for the Trademark Claims Sub Team, there was this other question in the TMCH section: · Should notices to the trademark owner be sent before the domain is registered? Finally, for the Sunrise Sub Team, the Trademark Claims Sub Team suggests that all Sub Teams take a look at the General Questions from the Charter, to see which (if any) may be applicable to that particular RPM. To that end, staff will be adding all the General Questions from the Charter to the Google Document that we are preparing for both Sub Teams, for your reference and consideration. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 14, 2017 at 13:15 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] IMPORTANT: Action Items and Notes from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 14 April 2017 Hi, Please find below the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sub Team call. Note that all Sub Team calls will be recorded and transcribed, so that Sub Team members who miss a call have an opportunity to listen to and/or read the details of the discussion. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to compile information on context/origin of each question by the next Sub Team call (e.g. how much support for a particular question in the past, or was it one suggestion) 2. Sub Team agreed to "bunch" similar questions together (but not necessarily redrafting - see notes on adding footnotes to facilitate clarity) 3. Staff/Sub Team Leadership to set up a Google Doc for first pass of consolidation of questions - second pass for refinement of questions 4. Sub Team members have 5 days (Wednesday, 19 April) to send suggestions to the mailing list, to be captured by staff in the Google Doc, and circulated to the Sub Team by Friday, 21 April. Notes: 1. Lori Schulman selected as Sub Team Chair 2. Discussion on Charter questions for Sunrise Registrations · What questions can be consolidated/refined? · Are premium names relevant to this Sub Team or even the Working Group? Premium names not considered RPMs o From AC Chat: I think the issue for premium names is around setting of pricing which effectively circumvents the sunrise and how do you address that as a brand owner if you have no route of objection o If pricing of premium names is interfering with the ability to use RPMs (such as trademark holders registrations during sunrise), might be within scope of the working group to discuss o Pricing during sunrise makes the benefits of sunrise economically difficult for trademark holders to take advantage of o Sub Team can go through questions - refine so that they make sense - use liaisons to new gTLD sub pro PDP to coordinate how they are addressed o Instead of redrafting questions, bucket questions together including those that may be similar or identical o Investigate instances when premium names interfere with sunrise registrations to determine the extent to which it may actually be problematic · From AC Chat: Brand owners are not the only party with "special rights" in accordance to Sunrise, GEO TLDs need to deliver domains for public services/streets/monuments e.t.c. to the Municipal Entity of the City... for example · Adding context to questions may be helpful in addressing them (suggestion by staff - staff can investigate origins of questions being considered) - contextual information could be to determine/clarify if questions address longstanding problems identified by the community vs a question that came up once, and was included o From AC Chat: I'm not sure it makes sense to research where a Charter question came from. What's more relevant is the level of interest it merits within the WG o Add notes/footnotes to questions that may be redundant or where meaning is not clear for clarification - as alternative to redrafting · ACTION ITEM: Sub Team members to review questions for redundancy, and make suggestions on-list (use Google Docs) 3. Preference expressed to hold next Sub Team call next Friday at UTC 14:00 (60 minutes with ability to extend to 90 minutes) to give Sub Team enough time to consolidate/refine questions - ACTION ITEM: Confirm next call day/time on-list ACTION ITEM: Aim for Wednesday for initial comments on question, so that staff can prepare and circulate document before Friday ________________________________ 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] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
by Cyntia King April 15, 2017

April 15, 2017

I must admit I'm troubled at the suggestion that registries attempt to enforce TM infringement standards. E.g. Hanson.entertainment How would the registry effectively parse the rights to registration of: * Hanson the band could use it for a music channel * Hanson Concrete could use it for how-to videos * Hanson Professional Services may register the domain for future use to stream marketing videos There are plenty of courtrooms where reasonable parties using the same mark disagree on who's rights have primacy, I don't believe registries should be asked to spit that baby. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking(a)modernip.com Modern IP, LLC PO Box 609 Forsyth, MO 65653 +1 81-ModernIP / +1 816.633.7647 <http://www.modernip.com/> www.modernip.com <http://www.twitter.com/modernip> <http://www.facebook.com/modernipllc> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 1:11 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm(a)eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Jeremy: First, even in a .fruit there is no guarantee that apple.fruit would be used for supporting the benefits of the fruit. However, if someone would take responsibility for the use of the second level TLD, that would be different. I am sure a multi-national computer company would have no problem with folks registering and using domains for generic or descriptive purposes or for unrelated purposes. The problem that there is no easy way to thwart having to file an expensive UDRP or more expensive lawsuit to police the misuse of one's mark. If registries and registrars would enforce the provision of their contracts where the registrant represents that its domain does not infringe on the rights of others that would be one thing, but they don't. If all new TLDs were sponsored or chartered wherein registration in the TLD required upfront verification that the registrant was in the class of persons for whom the TLD operates (e.g., like a .bank) or if domains were not sold on a first come, first served basis (like Yellow Pages ads in the old phone books), then we wouldn't have the issues we do. There are many cost-effective and efficient solutions beyond the Sunrise, but it also would greatly effect the artificial scarcity created by first come, first served sales and the bottom-line of registries that would actually need to take some responsibility to police their TLDs or at least assist TM owners by taking down infringements. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> jsevans(a)adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com> www.adobe.com On 4/14/17, 10:11 AM, " <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20Jeremy%20Malcolm> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm" < <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20jmalcolm@eff.org> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm(a)eff.org> wrote: On 13/4/17 8:47 pm, Greg Shatan wrote: > However, I don't think number 2 qualifies as gaming or abuse -- except > to the extent the trademark owner is being gamed or abused. Indeed, > one of the failed assumptions of the New gTLD Program seems to have > been that trademark owners would buy even more defensive registrations > than they did. So there's nothing wrong with a company that has a trademark for computers sunrise registering that trademark in a gTLD that relates to fruit on the strength of its computer trademark, locking out those who would actually use that domain name to sell fruit? Sounds like abuse to me. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

6 8

Text/design marks
by Rebecca Tushnet April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

Let me try my question about different kinds of word marks again by asking a couple of people who participated in the chat if they could elaborate. Martin Silva mentioned “mixed marks” in the civil law countries, “text marks that are represented in an specific figurative way (form+color) and are only protected in those designs.” Do you have any particular countries in mind? That sounds like an important concept for this discussion. John McElwaine said: “Many countries apparently require ‘a depiction’ of the mark with no distinction between text, stylization or included designs.” Do you have specific countries in mind? I think that could offer useful information to figure out what distinctions are or aren’t available. Sorry if I missed others, especially in the audio portion—the transcript isn’t up yet. Michael R Graham asked me in the chat: Please provide cases supporting "weaker" protection statement for stylized word registered marks. As I said on the call, there’s a distinction between protection and infringement. Koke infringes Coke for soft drinks, but Koke isn’t a “protected” mark of Coca-Cola’s. Unless the TMCH is supposed to expand coverage of marks beyond what’s registered or validated by a court, the fact that a stylized mark might (or might not) be infringed by a use that doesn’t have the same stylization isn’t relevant. I agree with Greg Shatan that “strength” of the mark isn’t relevant to what goes into the TMCH, but precisely because that’s true we should be particularly careful to ensure that marks that are only valid because of elements that can’t go into the TMCH—that is, stylization or design elements—can’t have their textual portions in the TMCH. For US jurisprudence on the limited scope of stylized marks v. standard character marks: Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent stylization), aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d. Cir. 2016); Time, Inc. v. Petersen Pub. Co., LLC, 173 F.3d 113, 118-19 (“[T]he law of trademark accords stronger protection to the stylized version of certain words used as trademarks than to those words themselves ….[T]rademark rights in the stylized appearance of a word are distinct from trademark rights in the word itself”) (2d Cir.1999); Gruner + Jahr USA Publ'g Div. of Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publ'g Co. v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1077–78 (2d Cir. 1993) (observing, for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis, that “the district court ... properly distinguished between the strength of the [composite] trademark PARENTS [consisting of those words rendered in a particular visual style] and the weak, descriptive nature of what it called the ‘mere word ‘parents,’ ' ”); King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084, 1090–91 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that two differently stylized marks using the same two words were not similar); Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized uses); Federation Internationale De Football Ass'n v. Nike, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 64, 72-73 (D.D.C. 2003) (“[E]ven after a descriptive term has become distinct, its power to preclude other uses of closely related descriptive terms is diminished where the senior owner has used its mark only in a particular, stylized way. For even if that overall stylized mark is strong, the trademark value of the words themselves may be quite weak.”); see also In re K-T Zoe Furniture, Inc., 16 F.3d 390 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stylized form was registrable, but words alone were descriptive and unregistrable); Igloo Products Corp. v. Brantex, Inc., 202 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 2000) (registration of composite mark didn’t provide presumption of validity for words alone); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (TTAB 2006) (finding no likelihood of confusion between two stylized marks despite identical goods and overlap in words BOX and BOX SOLUTIONS). Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759

4 9

Deloitte responses to our follow up questions
by Mary Wong April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached the responses from Deloitte on the additional questions we had sent to them previously. Their response follows on our discussion with them at ICANN58 in Copenhagen and includes their feedback on the various “design mark” examples we had provided. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 4

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Deloitte responses to our follow up questions
by Mary Wong April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

Hello John and everyone, Not at all – here they are, and with apologies that I didn’t think to include them with Deloitte’s responses! Cheers Mary From: John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine(a)nelsonmullins.com> Date: Friday, April 14, 2017 at 15:38 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Deloitte responses to our follow up questions Mary, Would you mind sending (or resending) the design mark examples. Thanks, John From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 2:58 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Deloitte responses to our follow up questions Dear all, Please find attached the responses from Deloitte on the additional questions we had sent to them previously. Their response follows on our discussion with them at ICANN58 in Copenhagen and includes their feedback on the various “design mark” examples we had provided. Thanks and cheers Mary Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, 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 either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

2 1

A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
by George Kirikos April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

Hi folks, (changing the subject accordingly) On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: > I think all of this is a huge red herring. If my memory serves me, there > have only been about 130 Sunrise Registrations. That is a very small number > when compared to the number of second level domains registered in the new > TLDs. I think it is safe to assume that there has been some gaming. We don’t > need to do an exhaustive investigation. What we need to do is look at > reasonable solutions to the gaming problem. I have not seen any proposals > for you on how to handle the problem. We need to close down this > unproductive discussion and move on to finding solutions to the problem of > gaming. These numbers stand for the proposition that the sunrise period should be entirely eliminated, given that folks concede it "is a very small number", and thus is not conferring many benefits to those who register them defensively, since they're not utilizing the procedure. And the gaming that does exist is amplified, since it means that a higher percentage of the sunrise registrations are gamed. It could be that 30%, or even 50% of sunrise registrations are gamed, given the various blog posts and examples provided to this mailing list already (and how many others might exist "under the radar", that some folks are trying to keep hidden due to the lack of transparency of the TMCH). Consider a "thought experiment" as to what would happen if Sunrise registrations and the TMCH were eliminated. Those 130 registrations would shift to either landrush or to general availability. For those who are "gaming" the sunrise, they'd now be on an equal footing as everyone else. For those legitimate TM holders, they can either register in landrush (or general availability), *or* they have curative rights protection mechanisms (courts, cease and desist letters, UDRP, URS, etc.) *if* domains which conflict with their TM rights are registered by someone else and misused. I could even support a "hybrid" (horse trading, as Phil called it yesterday) model, where landrush imposed **additional burdens** on registrants, e.g. paying costs if they lose a UDRP), but then that extra burden is eliminated during general availability (as it is today). This way, TM holders and legitimate end users who don't have trademarks but have non-conflicting uses, etc. are on equal footing during a landrush. I think many people are overly protective of the TMCH & sunrise period not because it's "working", but because it's an opportunity for extra consulting, revenue streams, etc. e.g. lawyers can tell their clients "get registered", and they can make money from the filing fees, etc. There's a huge amount of money being wasted, in my voice, that can be redirected to other things (like curative rights, better education, etc.). Suppose that of the 130 sunrise registrations, half of them got registered by legitimate TM owners in landrush. Of the 65 that were registered by someone else, how many of those would actually be cases of cybersquatting? I would suggest it's a small number, given the overall stats of UDRPs relative to registrations. Even if it was a massive 2% (actual percentage is much, much lower), that might mean 1 extra UDRP per TLD? With 1000+ TLDs launched over 4 years, that might mean an extra 250 UDRPs per year. That's a relatively negligible amount. If the "all-in" costs of those 250 UDRPs (lawyers fees + filing fees) is $5,000 or so, that's $1.25 million/yr. TMCH revenues, by contrast, are on the order of $5 million/yr for Deloitte. And perhaps another $5 million or more per year for all the TM agents, etc. filing on behalf of clients. Let's call it $10 million+ for TMCH-related fees on those using that system. Trading $10 million/yr in "preventive" costs for $1.25 million/yr in "enforcement" costs -- that's a no-brainer for TM holders. And if, as I argued above, if some of those UDRP enforcement costs are shifted to the losers (for landrush registrations), then the economics are even that much stronger for the elimination of the sunrise period (since that $1.25 million becomes even lower, due to cost recovery). And of course, a system that has no landrush definitely benefits ordinary registrants and prospective registrants who simply want a "good" name, or at least a fair chance at one, and don't want to see "THE" or "FLOWERS" or "HOTEL" or all of the other common words being grabbed in sunrise. Processes would be simplified for registry operators and registrars, if sunrises and TMCH were eliminated, which saves them money (which gets passed along as savings for consumers). TLDs would launch faster, too. The best second-level strings would be "spread around" more, which is probably a good thing (except to some who feel, wrongly, that they have exclusive rights to common dictionary terms, etc., which is not something the law supports). So, I hope folks will give serious consideration to what would happen if sunrise was completely eliminated. With a few small tweaks (as noted above), it could be much better than we have for most people (except for those exploiting the current system). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ P.S. I know I've not written much above about the TM Claims notice aspect of the TMCH, but those are obviously have a chilling effect, with a 96%+ abandonment rate of registrations. A 90 day claims notice, which determined cybersquatters are going to ignore anyway, simply confuses legitimate registrants. The "ongoing notifications service" aspect of the TMCH is available through other companies, e.g. DomainTools or other domain monitoring services. P.P.S. Some might argue that you can never collect $5K from registrants if they lose a UDRP. Shift some of that to the registrar, who can then police their own clients, a sort of "know your client" rule for those participating in landrushes. One can even envision a system of insurance, so that those who are involved in risky domain name registrations pay higher "insurance" (to indemnify their registrars) than less risky registrants who don't engage in cybersquatting. Or require a deposit at the start of the UDRP process (if one side doesn't post a deposit, they'd be in default).

8 13

3rd update Subgroup Member Lists
by Terri Agnew April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

Additional members added to sub groups below Hello, Please find below a quick view of each sub team members/observer at this time. We have had a few more requests today and all are currently added. Here is the wiki pages for all three sub groups - Main sub team wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw RPM WG Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw Member wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/nMrRAw Members: Roger Carney Kiran Malancharuvil Martin Pablo Silva Valent Maxim Alzoba Kristine Dorrain Brian Winterfeldt Phil Marano Griffin Barnett Lori Schulman Jeremy Malcolm Susan Payne Matthew Mlsna Observers: Paul McGrady WG Co-chairs: J Scott Evans Kathy Kleiman Phil Corwin RPM WG Sub Team for Trademark Claims: https://community.icann.org/x/psrRAw Member wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/qMrRAw Members Michael Graham Rebecca Tushnet Roger Carney Kiran Malancharuvil Beth Allegretti Justine Chew Scott Austin Kristine Dorrain Phil Marano Griffin Barnett Brian Winterfeldt Susan Payne Alison Simpson Observer: Paul McGrady WG Co-chairs: J Scott Evans Kathy Kleiman Phil Corwin RPM WG Sub Team for Additional Voluntary Protection Mechanisms: https://community.icann.org/x/s8rRAw Member wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/tcrRAw Members Brian F. Cimbolic Brian Winterfeld GriffinBarnett Jon Nevett Kiran Malancharuvil Kristine Dorrain Paul Keating Phil Marano Renee Fossen Steven Levy Paul McGrady Susan Payne Lillian Fosteris Janelle McAlister WG Co-chairs: J Scott Evans Kathy Kleiman Phil Corwin Thank you. Kind regards, Terri 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 1:56 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Subgroup Member Lists Mary/Staff, So that a lot of people don't have to look at three different wiki pages, would it be possible to send an email that shows the members of the 3 subgroups? Thanks! Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017

1 0