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

Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs
by George Kirikos July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

FYI, ICANN published this last night: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en and conceivably it might impact our work to some degree. For those concerned about having multiple databases of protected names (i.e. TMCH, GIs, etc.), there seems to be multiple lists here for claims notices for IGOs and INGOs, and it's not clear if those are simply being incorporated into the existing TMCH. More comments later, once I've had time to analyze it fully. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 3

Recirculating Deloitte's response to Working Group follow up questions
by Mary Wong June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

Hello everyone, At our co-chairs’ request, staff is recirculating the responses we received recently from Deloitte on the follow up questions that our Working Group had sent to them prior to the Copenhagen meeting. You can also find the response, along with the data Deloitte presented to us in Copenhagen, the Analysis Group’s revised report, and other Working Group documents discussing the TMCH at this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
by Amr Elsadr June 4, 2017

June 4, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the Action Items from today’s Working Group call. You will find the complete action items, notes, documents/materials and recordings for today’s call on the meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw. The transcripts will be posted on the same wiki page once they are available. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to remind WG members on-list to review the questions prepared by the Trademark Claims Sub Team, and submit questions before next week; staff to work with co-chairs and Sub Team to adjust the WG Work Plan to estimate start date and duration for this work 2. Staff to circulate the draft questions on Private Protections to the WG mailing list for review and feedback 3. Private Protection questions to be passed on to the Sub Team by staff to evaluate if they are worth pursuing, and what data is required to answer them – this action item has been deferred until WG members have had an opportunity to review the questions 4. Staff to add Claudio DiGangi and Greg Shatan as members of the Private Protections Sub Team – Sub Team is still accepting new members 5. Staff to circulate study in World Trademark Review referred to by Greg Shatan for consideration by the WG 6. WG members to suggest different names for “Private Protection” on the WG mailing list that may be more effective at achieving what the WG is attempting to describe 7. WG members should review the Private Protection questions prior to next week's WG call – Revisions to be discussed as part of the agenda for the WG call next week 8. Brian Beckham to circulate Version 3.0 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview of UDRP Cases paper circulated at INTA meeting to WG mailing list

8 8

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. June 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

Dear all: In response to a comment made on our call today suggesting that the attached, well drafted, proposal is a “comprehensive” representation of cybersquatting through non-exact matches, we offer a few additional examples: 1. Telescoped Terms: These variations leverage TLD extensions as part of an identical or non-exact match trademark. For example, COCA-CO.LA, SIE.MEN and NES.CAFE. 2. Related Brand Names: These variations either improperly attempt to use trademarks in a generic sense, or create consumer confusion concerning the relationship between two or more otherwise unrelated trademarks. For example, GOOGLELINKEDIN.COM. We are no longer surprised by the new and inventive ways cybersquatters develop each day to create consumer confusion online, and would strongly caution against any characterization as truly comprehensive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP 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: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches All, As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue. Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group. The attached proposal seek to fill that gap. It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches. However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered. The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal. I hope that this helpful to the work of the group. Greg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

3 2

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-31may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p30tm725cze/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1d0b66cd3929354d 21560731d101913a0a7092f23edd328723cd77441b3653ca> https://participate.icann.org/p30tm725cze/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 31 May 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_E QbwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ EQbwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5ll g&s=1XB-5B3LOy7KgNQjyns2i3qkeLpHm9D8DM_Xme8YfpA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=1X B-5B3LOy7KgNQjyns2i3qkeLpHm9D8DM_Xme8YfpA&e= Michael Flemming:I must be early. Terri Agnew:Hi Michael, meeting will start in 14 minutes Kathy Kleiman:Welcome all! George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Philip Corwin:Hello all Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Steve Levy:Hi all! Lori Schulman:No worries. ICANN will be in Barcelona next year. Susan Payne:or even Seattle Lori :) Susan Payne:oops - meant INTA will be Seattle Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):why not Montreal? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*for ICANN Mary Wong:Kristine Dorrain is on Lori Schulman:ICANN seems to be following INTA. We've recently had meetings in Panama and Barcelona. Precisely where ICANN 62 and 63 will be...as of now. Lori Schulman:My understanding is that subteams are short term. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Loir Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Lori Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lori, any chance INTA chooses Montreal instead of Seattle ? Lori Schulman:I support short term projects not a second work group. Lori Schulman:@ Maxim LOL Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hope subteams finish their mission and report to the whole WG and then they are dismissed Lori Schulman:+1 Maxim Michael R Graham:Sorry to be late. I am under the weather and have no microphone connection.. Mary Wong:Note that the proposed Q4 from the TM Claims Sub Team addresses the question being discussed on the list by Phil, Greg and others regarding wording of the Claims Notice. Michael R Graham:@Kristine: Thanks for taking the lead in explanation! Lori Schulman:Very well done I think Lori Schulman:at least on first glance Claudio:need to move over to audio-only Michael R Graham:No, I think Kristine has covered it well. Paul Tattersfield:very good presentation (especially off the cuff) thank you Michael R Graham:@Mary: I believe that is correct -- the Questions should not change. George Kirikos:Very bad font. Terri Agnew:also listed wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_E QbwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ EQbwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5ll g&s=1XB-5B3LOy7KgNQjyns2i3qkeLpHm9D8DM_Xme8YfpA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=1X B-5B3LOy7KgNQjyns2i3qkeLpHm9D8DM_Xme8YfpA&e= Terri Agnew:under documents Mary Wong:Is this better? Everyone can scroll, and if you don't want to use Full Screen you can magnify to 125% khouloud Dawahi:yes ,thank you mary Philip Corwin:Much more readable Paul Tattersfield:better font but the scroll but doesn't use all the window here so has scroll bars and dark grey panels down each side Mary Wong:@Paul T., we aren't able to change the margins in the display pod, unfortunately. Paul Tattersfield:thanks mary, that's a shame Jon Nevett:Too soon to see if there are any objections Jon Nevett:First time at least I am seeing it -- please send to list Mary Wong:Current list of Sub Team members for Private Protections can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_t crRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ tcrRAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5ll g&s=puX9bb3VOZvepV6uYhCY7es907bKOZSZkASYNK0LW5g&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=pu X9bb3VOZvepV6uYhCY7es907bKOZSZkASYNK0LW5g&e= Mary Wong:We note also that Paul McGrady had previously volunteered to chair this Sub Team, and that presumably is something the Sub TEam will decide on its first call (which staff will schedule shortly once the WG signs off on sending these questions to the Sub Team). Claudio:Mary, can you please add me to this subteam Jon Nevett:I disagree with that -- it should be at this level Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan - maybe Voluntary Practices? Lori Schulman:or Voluntary RPMs Brian Cimbolic:I like voluntary practices Mary Wong:A previous suggestion was "Additional Voluntary RPMs". Philip Corwin:Private refers to private sector provision of additional protection options not mandated by ICANN -- not secret. Greg Shatan:Support the change in terminology. Greg Shatan:don't see Lori Schulman:Voluntary to contract parties Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bor both , if registrants do not agree -most probably they can not registre Lori Schulman:Voluntary is absolulely correct Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*register Susan Payne:thank you that sounds good Greg Shatan:Don't see "Private Protections" as a buzz term. But maybe I'm traveling in the wrong circle.. Greg Shatan:"Discussion" is not the same thing as arguing a position.... :-) Lori Schulman:Kathy: I don't think that you were engaging in discussion; I think that you were challenging Susan rather than noting a suggestion. Whether you support or reject the suggestion is for another discussion. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, I am not sure we will not see this named "behind scenes private protections" today :) Lillian Fosteris:I agree with Greg. I haven't heard of "Private Protections" before Greg Shatan:None of this is behind the scenes.... Lori Schulman:I have seen Private Protections used as well as Voluntary Greg Shatan:I volunteer for this also. Mary Wong:Now 18, with Greg Lori Schulman:Voluntary for Registries Phil Marano:I am happy to volunteer as well. Philip Corwin:There is clearly high intetest in this subject of additional, non-required protections Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lori, and obligatory for Registrars and Registrants registering in those TLDs Lori Schulman:Thanks Maxim, I appreciate your noting the distinction George Kirikos:Let's change the name of "Smarter Non-Exact Matches" to something neutral, too. Lori Schulman:SMEMs Philip Corwin:Prerhaps Comprehensive Non-Exact Matches, as I beleive that Greg has identified every possible variation of non-ecat matches that may be associated with cybersquatting. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I failed to find in the document - what to do with single letter TMs (if any) Lori Schulman:Many have flip phones because they don't trust the data collection on smart phones George Kirikos:Shhh, don't tell Greg about Alexa, or we'll have to add #13, sound-a-like matches..... Lori Schulman:perhaps they are smarter? Claudio:how about we call it the "covfefe" subteam? :) George Kirikos:My thoughts on Greg's proposal: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/002017.html Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Claudio, do you suggets adding "mumble-type" matches? Susan Payne:@Maxim, that's a really good point. Would need some thought to get the balance right, but I think there are ways to address it by needing to have some minimum level of actual matching with the typo/fat finger etc type categories so that you could nmot have another letter being considered a "match" to a one letter TM Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):infamous THE entry ... I think it will have lots of notifications Philip Corwin:In addition to the questions and comments I amended to Greg's draft, I believe we need to consider whether there is any data indicating the extent of the problem this proposal is intended to address. That is, to what extent have these types of non-exact matches been associated with cybersquatting at new gTLDs that resulted in UDRP or URS filings? There is always some element of cost/benefit analysis in policy decisions. George Kirikos:@Phil: right, these seem to be common types of historical cybersquatting, when type-in traffic was easier to monetize. New gTLDs get much less type-in traffic than .com, and so PPC parking is much lower. Steve Levy:LOL! Did you mention covfefe on a dare? George Kirikos:So, this document is trying to address issues from 10+ years ago, not cybersquatting of today. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think 10. should be extended to include latin symbos mimicing IDNs - it happend too Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*symbols Rebecca L Tushnet:Wouldn't enom/venom be caught by at least some of these rules? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):almost similar matches? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also it needs to be added to work of sunrise subteam (if we decide to add "sunrise too") Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The first sentence references sunrise or claims. If it's going to be part of Sunrise, it's going to need to be implemented in the TMCH db. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And, come to think of it, either way... Michael R Graham:I do have comments on Greg's proposal -- but typing would be difficult. I do have a proposed amendment to my proposal. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):If Sunrise is left there - it needs to be discussed in Sunrise subteam Susan Payne:I think it's important to bear in mind however that you could apply some of these sensibly to sunrise ie mark plus keyword or mark plus commonly used terms. whereas others, like the fat finger and character replacment are unlikley to be at all relevant or attractive for a sunrise registration even were we to try to go down that rabbit hole Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Susan. Michael R Graham:I would view some of the categories as additions. Lori Schulman:We could have sunrise team look at proposal for relevancy to our questions Terri Agnew:finding the echo Greg Shatan:I muted my tablet, which was causing the echo. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think we need to look at the practicalities, including: for each brand, there would be, what? 50? 100? variations in the TMCH db? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):question: what to do in situation where BOTH parties are in TMCH ? Greg Shatan:Happy to work with Michael on a next draft. Michael R Graham:My general revision/clarification of my proposal -- and I would want to craft it as part of that better -- would be: "but only where the Trademark string is separate from and does not constitute only an alphanumeric component of (e.g. -red, etc.) the other elements of the domain name." Greg Shatan:Maxim, same as we do now. George Kirikos:@Kristine: I showed some math in my email. It could be far higher than that. Michael R Graham:Would be glad to work with Jeff. George Kirikos:Especially if combinations are permitted, i.e. multiple rules being triggered. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):This paper is too Latin script oriented (10 and 11 sould look almost like mirror versions of each other ) Michael R Graham:NOTE: categories 8, 11 and 12 would be covered by my String-contained proposal as revised. Jeremy Malcolm:Since this proposal is limited to claims, why doesn't it go to the claims subgroup and questions? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:ah, thanks, I'm a day behind on reading the list. Greg Shatan:George, your math is based on a false assumption, that the potential matches would result in any similar number of actual matches. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Jeremy, the first sentence says Sunrise OR Claims. Rebecca L Tushnet:Not to mention other keyboards since we're now talking about multiple languages Rebecca L Tushnet:(alphabets) Jeremy Malcolm:But Greg said we should only consider it in context of claims Jeremy Malcolm:Unless I misunderstood Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we leave Sunrise - we are at risk of creation of new rights which do not exist in the Real World George Kirikos:@Greg: no it's not. Go and generate all the combos just fot the top 10 terms in the Analysis Group's report. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Also, in order to generate a claims notice, the registrar has to ping the TMCH to get the data, so the preliminary question is how all these variations are added to the TMCH and validated. Greg Shatan:Jeremy, you are correct. George Kirikos:Then you'll see how much the expansion is correct. Jon Nevett:Question -- Greg, when you say that your proposal only would apply to Claims, are you suggesting that it would apply to both sides of Claims (notice to registrant and acknowledgement AND notice to mark holder) or just notice to mark holder? Georges Nahitchevansky:Yes there is a significant problem. It is not just a UDRP and URS issue, but involves countless demand letters, takedowns, monitoring and follow up. I would suggest that better than 90 % of brand owners have experienced these types of issues George Kirikos:*how much the expansion is going to be, rather. Greg Shatan:@George, you're talking theory, I'm talking what is likely to happen, based on potential registrations. Michael R Graham:Several of the categories seem to require moderation that would violate the intent to avoid subjective review: 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Categories 1, 6, and 7 would be excellent additions to String-contained trigger for TM Claims Notice George Kirikos:@Greg: Every single 3 and 4 letter .com is registered. Greg Shatan:Georges, that's an incredibly important point, and one I've been waiting to make.... George Kirikos:Every 3, 4 and 5 letter mark would generate enormous number of false positives, by your rules. Michael R Graham:I do think review of categories in terms of whether their capture can be implemented automatically would be essential. Lori Schulman:My apologies. I need to leave the call for another meeting. See you online next week. Mary Wong:@Phil, policy staff is not aware of any data on the extent of the problem that this proposal seeks to address. However, we'd draw the WG's attention to the Analysis Group's work on this point in their report. Philip Corwin:@Jon--good question above. Notice to mark holder alone would not raise the issue of discouraging intenfded domain registrations that would not be infringing. Scott Austin:variant matches, fuzzy matches Rebecca L Tushnet:But the question is: can these problems be mapped to the categories proposed to be covered? If not, then the target and the weapon are mismatched. Justine Chew:I seem to have drawn a particularly poor connection tonight. Will drop off now and catch up via the notes / recordings. Mary Wong:@Greg, are you referring to the Hogan Lovells study that WTR just reported on? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.worldtrademarkreview .com_Blog_Detail.aspx-3Fg-3Dcfc250b5-2D6521-2D4448-2D8e84-2Da91d2c5f8236 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.worldtrademarkrevie w.com_Blog_Detail.aspx-3Fg-3Dcfc250b5-2D6521-2D4448-2D8e84-2Da91d2c5f8236&d= DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL 7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=26yWf IfCQgZXrT79swO4VPcu0u8RUcNz0lXtfFpwR7Q&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=26 yWfIfCQgZXrT79swO4VPcu0u8RUcNz0lXtfFpwR7Q&e= Mary Wong:We will try to get a copy of the study (unless anyone already has it and can share) for circulation. Claudio:link to a study on typosquatting: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lirias.kuleuven.be_bits tream_123456789_471369_3_typos-2Dfinal.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lirias.kuleuven.be_bit stream_123456789_471369_3_typos-2Dfinal.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4 t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=SVeIDhimo0UcsXhf8F47FjZnVL21N1EhyGg ziF-2f5A&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZxHh4t27L-wxIDd9K5AOSlzVE6QICKdUb4Clu2j5llg&s=SV eIDhimo0UcsXhf8F47FjZnVL21N1EhyGgziF-2f5A&e= Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):inclusion of single and 2 letter TMs will generate almost 100% rate of claim notices to registrants and it might lead to decline in use of domains in total Greg Shatan:Mary, yes it is that study. Georges Nahitchevansky:Greg is correct that UDRP and URS are just the tip of the iceberg. There have been several studies on typo domains, other categories of domain registrations and the type of problems that have been encountered on a regular basis Kathy Kleiman:@Greg: would these variations be added to the TMCH Database? Michael R Graham:@George K -- Do you have any idea how many of the 2, 3, 4 letter strings have been registered in New gTLD to date? Susan Payne:are you willing to have loser pays then George? Greg Shatan:I'm open to ideas to make the matches "smarter" still. George Kirikos:@Susan: Sure, Susan. I would take matters to court, in any event, where it's loser pays (in Canada). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):which number covers famous 1 and l and I issue? Ivett Paulovics:Sorry, I have leave the call. George Kirikos:@Michael: most are premium priced by the registry operators. One can check, obviously. George Kirikos:Disproporationate, exactly. George Kirikos:That's the entire TMCH, in a nutshell. George Kirikos:It's trying to fight the problems of 10 years ago. George Kirikos:*Disproportionate, even Georges Nahitchevansky:Smart matches make sense. This is not just a trademark issue but a consumer issue. There is so much fraud with these types of domains that Greg is addressing that this is becoming a major consumer issue and a questioning of the integrity of the system. Mary Wong:To Jeremy's last suggestion - note that Q4 of the TM Claims Sub Team questions is: "If the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP determines that non-exact matches of trademarks should be allowed inclusion in the TMCH, should the TM Claims Notice be changed, and if so, how?" George Kirikos:Resolutions shouldn't be through polls. George Kirikos:Otherwise, there's a high risk of capture by the IP constituency. George Kirikos:We should see where the data takes us. Mary Wong:@George, correct - WG Guidelines don't favor polls for consensus. However, as an informal tool for gauging support and to guide planning, they have been used by several WGs with success. Michael R Graham:@Georges: Agree. @George: We should seek balance for all constituents -- TM Owners, Consumers, Registries and Registrars, etc. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):who will decide which TMCH current entries need to be removed if a conflict arise? Georges Nahitchevansky:Again George K, this is not simply an IP constituency issue, but a much larger issue and problem that many constituencies have been dealing with George Kirikos:i.e. support for any proposal needs to be *justified* by the data and logical reasoning, and not just popularity. Claudio:Agree with John's last point. there is a big difference between "innocent infringers" and bad-faith activity Colin O'Brien:+1 Claudio and John Michael R Graham:@Greg: Would you agree to limit the "smart" categories to TM Claims Notices and not Sunrise? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael +1 Greg Shatan:Michael, yes, my proposal is limited to Claims. Susan Payne:agree that there is scope for "smart" claims notices depending on what the trigger is. we don't need to assume that all of these should have identical treatment and so reject out of hand Greg Shatan:No, these would not need to be registered. Greg Shatan:These would be generated. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil, how do you propose the claims notice gets generated, without the TMCH? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):then it needs to be added to the text (that it should be not used as a basis for inclusion of such records into TMCH) Paul Tattersfield:@Claudio, the problem is the bad actors need a much higher level of deterrent to change behaviour, where as the genuinely innocent can be very easily deterred by far minor warnings Mary Wong:Aren't Claims Notices sent by registrars? Greg Shatan:Kristine, it would be TMCH record then fed through a food processor.... George Kirikos:Very true, Paul. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And bad actor is distinguished from good faith registrant only by intent...something it's impossible to know Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Paul Susan Payne:I think there a few RySG members here - although many not terribly vocal. would be good to hear from them Brian Cimbolic:I like that approach much better than notice going both to the registrant and the TM holder George Kirikos:True WHOIS is a much greater deterrent to cybersquatting, than the TMCH. Greg Shatan:Paul, some really bad actors will be deterred by nothing. But it's amateur hour in the new gTLDs. George Kirikos:As long as one can commit fraud anonymously with impunity, a million notices won't make a difference to professional criminals. Greg Shatan:I would not support a TM holder only notice system. Kathy Kleiman:I'm closing the line so that we can move on... George Kirikos:1200 over how many years? David McAuley (RySG):I must have missed Jon's comment in chat as summarized by Phil but it sounds sensible to me, as does Brian's comment just now George Kirikos:Whereas the TMCH is a $5 million per year business, i.e. $20+ million over 4 years. Greg Shatan:This is a multi billion dollar problem overall. George Kirikos:So, spending $20 million, and saving a couple of million in UDRPs? Horrible math. Michael R Graham:@Brian -- Agree on avoiding over-broad Notices, etc. George Kirikos:Eliminating TMCH is an entirely fair suggestion. Do the math, calmly and rationally. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, it is not 16.6 k USD per one Greg Shatan:Again, George, your "math" is based on false assumptions. Greg Shatan:My pleasure.... :-) Susan Payne:thanks Brian, that is really useful information. $1.8m is of course just WIPO and not the other providers I think, but even that is a huge sum being shelled out by brand owners to try to ensure that consumers are not deceived Georges Nahitchevansky:George K - Do the math. Count the UDRPs and URS through WIPO, NAF and other provider and multiply by filing feels, then add counsel fees to bring these proceedings and investigate the parties etc.. The numbers are staggering. Philip Corwin:That WIPO 3.0 Overview will be very relevant to our UDRP review work next year. Greg Shatan:Each filing fee is only the tip of an iceberg... George Kirikos:@Georges: no they're not. Add them up. George Kirikos:Low millions. Claudio:perhaps some of the $100 million surplus can be used to cover TMCH costs Jeremy Malcolm:haha John McElwaine:@Claudio great idea! Michael R Graham:I believe Greg and I should confer to see if we can derive a "smart match" revision of the Question 10 proposal to present to the Group for debate and consideration. Susan Kawaguchi:Agree with Georges the filing fee is only 10-20 % of the cost of filing a UDRP Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Have to run for another call Michael R Graham:@Claudio -- Agree with good use of surplus. Mary Wong:@George K, I don't think data is being expected for design marks and GIs, is it? Michael R Graham:@George -- Raising the "capture" argument is not productive. Claudio:@George helps registries and registrants too (as most costs get passed down to them) Georges Nahitchevansky:Wrong George K. UDRP and URS is just a piece of teh problemn. Count the number of demand letters, investigations, lawsuits etc. There have been any number of studies that have concluded that we are talking billions of dollars. This is not some minor issue as you are trying to paint it. There have also been FBI and other law enforcement studies on the level of fraud using bogus domains etc. Colin O'Brien:Members of the IP constituency represent the interest of the millions if not billions of their clients customers. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Claudio, costs are transferred to the party caused the issue usually George Kirikos:@Michael: It's a serious concern, nonetheless. Michael R Graham:There are levels of consensus -- I believe defined by the Policy & Implementation working group. George Kirikos:+1 Jeremy. Louise Marie Hurel:+1 Jeremy George Kirikos:An unpopular position, but supported by data and reasoning, is more important than "popular" positions based on self-serving interests of the dominant group. Scott Austin:+1 Georges Paul Tattersfield:registration regisitry services group is probably going to make the situation worse for IP rights enforcement :( Michael R Graham:@George: Agree -- but data and reasoning must be accurate and fairly applied -- regardless of popularity or self-interest. Susan Kawaguchi:polls have worked well for getting a "sense of the room" in the RDS WG Claudio:can the co-chairs reach out to the contracted parties house to encourage their participation (on the basis they are underpresented in this group)? George Kirikos:How would we know there's no bloc voting, when the IPC constituency mailing list is private? George Kirikos:There is limited transparency in the various constituencies for mailing lists, etc. Petter Rindforth:Hear, hear! David McAuley (RySG):well said Greg Paul Tattersfield:Good to hear Greg Claudio:thanks, Kathy Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 07 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Georges Nahitchevansky:Well said Greg Mary Wong:Thursday khouloud Dawahi:Thanks Terri George Kirikos:So, that'd be Tuesday night, for those in North America? Mary Wong:THursday for APAC/EMEA, Wednesday evening for Americas Michael R Graham:Thanks, Kathy! Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye Steve Levy:Bye all! Terri Agnew:I will adjust to Thursday Greg Shatan:Bye all! khouloud Dawahi:bye Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye everyone George Kirikos:Bye folks. Louise Marie Hurel:Bye all

1 0

A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches
by Greg Shatan May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

All, As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue. Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group. The attached proposal seek to fill that gap. It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches. However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered. The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal. I hope that this helpful to the work of the group. Greg

7 9

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Updated agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 31 May 2017
by Paul Keating May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Hi mary, I am flying tomorrow and will most likely miss the call. I am against the proposal of Mr. Shatan. I would like a clear understanding about the future use of polls. Sent from my iPad > On 30 May 2017, at 22:57, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > In view of Greg’s proposal (attached) from Monday, the agenda for the call this Wednesday 31 May will be adjusted slightly, as follows: > > > 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest > 2. Review/discussion of proposed refined Charter questions from Trademark Claims Sub Team > 3. Review/discussion of proposed Private Protections questions from the WG co-chairs > 4. Presentation/brief discussion of proposal from Greg Shatan > 5. Agree on next steps for open TMCH questions (design marks, GIs, expanding the identical match standard) – e.g. an online survey to poll WG members on the level of support for the various proposals put forward to date or other mechanism to gauge support? > 6. Next steps/next meeting > > In addition, as Greg’s proposal refers to Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice from May 2011, the Working Group co-chairs have asked staff to provide some background on that point. We hope the following notes are helpful: > > > * The reference to the GAC’s May 2011 advice is to the GAC’s comments to the April 2011 version of the AGB (now archived as AGB version 6): https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278837/GAC%20Comments%20on%… > > > * Following further consultations between the Board and the GAC, ICANN published notes in response to the GAC Scorecard that, on this issue, disagrees with the GAC that the TMCH RPMs should go beyond identical match: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/board-notes-gac-scorecard-cle… (Section 6.1.3, Page 14) > > > * Further along the implementation lifecycle, ICANN published an Explanatory Memorandum (September 2012) on how the identical match rules will be applied: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-… > > > * Finally, the TMCH review that was done recently by the Analysis Group’s was a result of the GAC’s request for such an exercise, contained in its May 2011 comments (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-23-en) The review includes analysis of the benefits/burdens of expanding the identical match rule for Claims notices, and concludes that there is: > * “no clear evidence that expanding the matching criteria will outweigh the potential costs of doing so. Registration activity by trademark holders and third-party registrants is disproportionately centered around exact matches of trademark strings rather than variations of trademark strings.” > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 29, 2017 at 22:11 > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches > > All, > > As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue. Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group. > > The attached proposal seek to fill that gap. It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches. However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered. The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal. > > I hope that this helpful to the work of the group. > > Greg > <Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches.pdf> > <Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches.docx>

1 0

Updated agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 31 May 2017
by Mary Wong May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Dear all, In view of Greg’s proposal (attached) from Monday, the agenda for the call this Wednesday 31 May will be adjusted slightly, as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review/discussion of proposed refined Charter questions from Trademark Claims Sub Team 3. Review/discussion of proposed Private Protections questions from the WG co-chairs 4. Presentation/brief discussion of proposal from Greg Shatan 5. Agree on next steps for open TMCH questions (design marks, GIs, expanding the identical match standard) – e.g. an online survey to poll WG members on the level of support for the various proposals put forward to date or other mechanism to gauge support? 6. Next steps/next meeting In addition, as Greg’s proposal refers to Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice from May 2011, the Working Group co-chairs have asked staff to provide some background on that point. We hope the following notes are helpful: * The reference to the GAC’s May 2011 advice is to the GAC’s comments to the April 2011 version of the AGB (now archived as AGB version 6): https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278837/GAC%20Comments%20on%… * Following further consultations between the Board and the GAC, ICANN published notes in response to the GAC Scorecard that, on this issue, disagrees with the GAC that the TMCH RPMs should go beyond identical match: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/board-notes-gac-scorecard-cle… (Section 6.1.3, Page 14) * Further along the implementation lifecycle, ICANN published an Explanatory Memorandum (September 2012) on how the identical match rules will be applied: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-… * Finally, the TMCH review that was done recently by the Analysis Group’s was a result of the GAC’s request for such an exercise, contained in its May 2011 comments (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-23-en) The review includes analysis of the benefits/burdens of expanding the identical match rule for Claims notices, and concludes that there is: * “no clear evidence that expanding the matching criteria will outweigh the potential costs of doing so. Registration activity by trademark holders and third-party registrants is disproportionately centered around exact matches of trademark strings rather than variations of trademark strings.” Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 29, 2017 at 22:11 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches All, As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue. Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group. The attached proposal seek to fill that gap. It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches. However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered. The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal. I hope that this helpful to the work of the group. Greg

1 0

Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call this Wednesday
by Mary Wong May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda, and relevant accompanying documents, for the next Working Group call, scheduled for this coming Wednesday 31 May, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review/discussion of proposed refined Charter questions from Trademark Claims Sub Team (see attached document) 3. Review/discussion of proposed Private Protections questions from the WG co-chairs (see attached document) 4. Agree on next steps for open TMCH questions (design marks, GIs, expanding the identical match standard) – e.g. an online survey to poll WG members on the level of support for the various proposals put forward to date or other mechanism to gauge support? 5. Next steps/next meeting Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Dear all: Here are a couple of important points to consider regarding false positives, which are largely a red herring in my opinion. First, any brand owner or representative that uses commercial watch services will tell you that false positives will always be present, no matter how good the algorithm used to flag matters of potential concern. Predicates for enforcement measures, including likelihood of confusion for infringement and bad faith for cybersquatting, are analyses that are necessarily made by trained professionals. Second, as was pointed out on our last call, expanded TMCH matches need not wildcard, or be compared against, the entire universe of possible terms (though that approach would certainly make sense for fanciful marks). For example, relevant terms could be taken from the goods and services listed in the TMCH record, or from a predetermined list of commonly abused terms like CAREERS, JOBS, and HOME etc. Thus, the system could be designed in a way such that there would be no false positives. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP -----Original Message----- 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 icannlists Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:46 PM To: Rebecca Tushnet Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches Rebecca, Apologies for copying the wrong list before. I've corrected it here. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to minimize false positives. I'm looking forward to rolling up our collective sleeves to find the right balance! Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone > On May 17, 2017, at 7:10 PM, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26(a)georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@georgetown.edu>> wrote: > > My point was instead that even if the best data weren't collected there are proxies. And I wasn't talking about chilling effects, though those are relevant, but about false positives, which are detrimental to the system as a whole, including to legitimately sent notices. > > Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. > >> On May 17, 2017, at 7:13 PM, icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: >> >> Understood Rebecca, but we also can't just shrug off demonstrable harm to brands and their consumers just because we are data poor on the drive to identify a chilled would-be registrant. >> >> Even so, hopefully, Staff will respond soon so we can know for sure whether or not the data you are seeking was collected. >> >> >> Best, >> Paul >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:13 PM >> To: icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches >> >> As George has been saying, there are ways to estimate false positives using various datasets. We shouldn't go ahead considering only claims about benefits and just shrugging about costs and promising to look into them later; that seems contrary to the reasons exact match was adopted as the consensus at the outset. >> Rebecca Tushnet >> Georgetown Law >> 703 593 6759 >> >> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: >>> Thanks Rebecca, >>> >>> The point I was trying to get at is that even if we are dataless on the false positives from Round 1 (harm to potentially chilled registrants) we aren't dataless on the harm to trademark owners and the consumers they protect. Say we pick a mark and add to it the product terms contained in its statement of services, we can then check that against the URS and UDRP records for new gTLDs to see if they would have triggered a claims notice. So that part, at least, is knowable (although quite the job for anyone trying to dig into the data). >>> >>> I'm looking forward to Staff's reply on whether or not there is a list of domain names abandoned after claims notice. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" but let's be safe. If no, then we have to ask should we continue to allow the harms evidence by UDRP & URS decisions just because we forgot to collect data on abandonments following claims, or so we rely on the UDRP & URS analysis to say we need to enhance claims (and then collect the data in the second round to see if the enhanced claims need further tweaking either up or down). >>> >>> Hopefully, we will hear from Staff soon. >>> >>> Best, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu] >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:01 PM >>> To: icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches >>> >>> Paul, I don't think that the idea that UDRP/URS decisions are relevant evidence is true across the board; even after excluding those with common-law rights only, we'd still have to look at which ones would have gotten a notice if the match process had been in place. >>> >>> Also, consumers have interests in the websites of legitimate registrants; consumer interests do not line up exactly with trademark owners' interests. >>> >>> Separately, the percentage of false positives is important to trademark owners too; if 80% of attempts trigger a match notice, that is likely to diminish the deterrent effect--the way we click through a number of other warnings that don't seem particularly targeted to our activity. >>> Rebecca Tushnet >>> Georgetown Law >>> 703 593 6759 >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:48 PM, icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: >>>> Thanks Rebecca. >>>> >>>> Staff, does the information that Rebecca is seeking in existence? I thought that there was no record of the specific domain names which were non-registered after receiving a notice of claim. >>>> >>>> Rebecca, I think your question has more to do with harm to potentially chilled registrants rather than harm to trademark owners/consumers, correct? Harm to trademark owners/consumers can be evidenced by UDRP/URS decisions for domain names that would fall into the next expanded category. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on that. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> 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 Rebecca Tushnet >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 1:36 PM >>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches >>>> >>>> Reposting per J. Scott's request on the call: >>>> >>>> In order to fully evaluate the proposal to extend the match criteria, we really need information on the harm it is supposed to address, including (1) the number of registration attempts that included but were not limited to the text of an entry in the TMCH and (2) the number of such registrations that led to a trademark owner challenge after the fact (therefore excluding URS actions against, for example, typosquatting). >>>> To the extent that the proposal becomes more limited to specific goods and services, the evidence of need should be likewise limited. Then, as George K. eloquently explained, we'd also want to see how many attempts/registrations would have been flagged in an expanded match system, to get a sense of the potential for false positives. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rebecca Tushnet >>>> Georgetown Law >>>> 703 593 6759 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o… >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o… __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

2 1