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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
by Mary Wong Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Thanks very much for the links and materials, Jeff – staff will add them to the Working Group wiki space. As staff has also been trying to locate historical information relating to the development of the various RPMs we are reviewing in this Working Group, we would like to invite Working Group members to send on similar information so that we can continue to compile a useful bibliography, including (when the time comes) for the other RPMs. Regarding the TM-PDDRP, Working Group members may in addition be interested in seeing all the community comments that were provided in response to a public comment opportunity on the TM-PDDRP in early 2010: https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/threads.html (Jeff has already included links to a few, and to the staff analysis of those comments). We are truly grateful for the tremendous depth of expertise in this Working Group. While staff may be able to find and collate a certain amount of material, being able to leverage your knowledge and memories is invaluable. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 16:36 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP All, I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or even adding a new one. Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we can make to the PDDRP to “make it better” without any evidence being evaluated by the group on whether or not there is a need to “make it better.” One of those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower standard necessitating a change to the policy. Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and others on this Issue including ICANN’s analysis. There were other proponents of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP should not a “second bite at the apple”. Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: WIPO Proposal: · https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March 2010) · https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) · https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December 2010) Circle ID Articles · http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… (May 5, 2010) ICANN Analysis: · https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) · https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… (November 2010) - Pg 118 ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf (Introduction addresses “The procedure is not intended to hold liable a registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.”) RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf (July 2010) Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
by Paul Keating Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

+1 absolutely. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:46 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP > +1 > > > David W. Maher > Public Interest Registry > Senior Vice-President Law & Policy > +1 312 375 4849 > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Jeff Neuman > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:37 PM > To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP > > All, > > I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our > job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights > protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any > changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual > evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person > proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing > good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that > good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. > > On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated > that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the > failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs > to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns > (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any > of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they > were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or > even adding a new one. > > Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we > can make to the PDDRP to ³make it better² without any evidence being evaluated > by the group on whether or not there is a need to ³make it better.² One of > those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP > without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there > is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower > standard necessitating a change to the policy. > > Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful > blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY > discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP > should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of > the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and > others on this Issue including ICANN¹s analysis. There were other proponents > of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and > other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the > governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all > on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. > > The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP > should not a ³second bite at the apple². > > Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: > > WIPO Proposal: > · https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March > 2010) > > · https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) > > · https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December > 2010) > > > Circle ID Articles > · > http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… > reate_new_law/ (May 5, 2010) > > > ICANN Analysis: > · > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… > is-28may10-en.pdf (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) > > · > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… > .pdf (November 2010) - Pg 118 > > > ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf > (Introduction addresses ³The procedure is not intended to hold liable a > registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain > names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.²) > > RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: > https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) > > Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf > (July 2010) > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or > jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

All, I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or even adding a new one. Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we can make to the PDDRP to "make it better" without any evidence being evaluated by the group on whether or not there is a need to "make it better." One of those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower standard necessitating a change to the policy. Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and others on this Issue including ICANN's analysis. There were other proponents of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP should not a "second bite at the apple". Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: WIPO Proposal: * https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March 2010) * https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) * https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December 2010) Circle ID Articles * http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… (May 5, 2010) ICANN Analysis: * https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) * https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… (November 2010) - Pg 118 ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf (Introduction addresses "The procedure is not intended to hold liable a registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.") RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf (July 2010) Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

3 2

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 10 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-10aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> 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#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 August 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi All Paul Tattersfield:Hi All Sonigitu Ekpe:Hello All! Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Hello everybody! Mary Wong:@Kathy we will upload the redline Mary Wong:If it will make it easier to see the changes Marie Pattullo:Can answers be anonymous/aggregated? I'm not sure we'd get as much input if not. Mary Wong:@Marie, we can report aggregated total numbers but survey responses will be individual forms. Respondents can choose not to give their name, though. Marie Pattullo:Thanks Mary - that's what I was getting at; companies who may not wish to be named/cited. Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Will/should UDRP decisions have any influence on the outcomes of PDDRPs? - Potential question for ICANN Compliance Marie Pattullo:Agree with Susan's question to Compliance. And can they say why the potential complainant chose not to proceed? Denise Michel:@ susan - i'd suggest not only asking if Compliance is empowered but also ask if they HAVE taken action based on data/information George Kirikos:Do we know if those registars were closely related to certain registries? (e.g. wholly-owned subsidiaries, common shareholders, etc?) susan payne:@George, we diont have any information about who the registrars are George Kirikos:Thanks, Susan. susan payne:the Analysis report does not identify organisations Sonigitu Ekpe:Yes susan payne:sounds good thanks Mary Wong:@Kathy, what you see in AC is the clean version of the updated document - seemed easier to review than the redline Mary Wong:OK let us know if you want us to switch to the redline - it gets a bit messy with the new boxes, though. George Kirikos:There was a straw poll sent to the mailing list, but only 17 folks filled it out: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm George Kirikos:That was from last Friday's email, see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-August/000407.html George Kirikos:I'm not sure what was meant with "mediation online" -- I think often it's by telephone, to be in "real-time", rather than "online". If it's online, it could drag on forever. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:George, online mediation is often conducted over Skype, etc. Mary Wong:@George, all - we note that further deliberation on the actual details of what that mediation would look like will be needed. The agreed idea is that it would have to be lightweight and lean. Kurt Pritz:If mediation is voluntary (and I think it should be) I don't think we should be prescriptive as to form. It can be whatever form the two parties wish it to be. Alistair Payne:I agree with Kurt - if mediation is voluntary then the parties should be able tio run it as they wish. Justine Chew:Submissions are submitted online too, no? Lori Schulman:Agree with Alistair and Kurt. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Agree with Kurt, the key with mediation is that it meets the current needs of the current parties. Mary Wong:Sure thing, Kathy - that was our understanding but it may make sense to make it explicit, I guess. Luc Seufer:So Amazon is for online services? How surprising ;-) George Kirikos:I'd agree, that it should be "real-time", but not necessarily "online". If both parties are in the same location, a face-to-face mediation, with a mediator chosen in the same city, can be advantageous. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Luc, to be clear, I disclaimed that as an Amazon statment. I was speaking historically from my experience as former director of NAF Luc Seufer:I was just teasing. I am also convinced online is the way for such mediation. Lori Schulman:I responded this morning. George Kirikos:i.e. goal of mediation is to encourage settlement, or narrowing the issues; can use technology in some ways to complement the "human" aspect, but not replace it. Lori Schulman:George, given our virtual world, mediation is a very good option for many. It should be consented on both sides. It is not intended to replace human aspects but to facilitate good outcomes. Mediation has been an extremely useful tool to settle distributes in my experience. Alistair Payne:Lori/George - agree with both but i think that the point is that in person mediation as an option is essential, not just on-line Paul Tattersfield:Alistair +1 Luc Seufer:if the party willing to have the in person mediation is accepting to support the extra costs, why not Lori Schulman:Alistair, yes, I agree with human or virtual option...option is key. George Kirikos:I agree, Alistair, keep options open that would help those involved with the dispute (i.e. the parties). Mandating a certain method in order to make it more convenient for a particular mediation provider shouldn't be a priority. George Kirikos:(i.e. parties might want to choose a mediation provider that is unrelated to the PDDRP dispute resolution providers) Justine Chew:+1 Jeff Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:YES Jeff. Alistair Payne:or simply to agree a mediator in their jurisdiction who is convenient and effective Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Jeff Statton Hammock:Great point Jeff N. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:We are shooting in the dark trying to "solve" problems that haven't yet arisen. Darcy Southwell:+1 Jeff Justine Chew:Yes, Jeff sets out the logic for this point correctly. Lori Schulman:INTA has done that on several occasions. Lori Schulman:Many are reluctant to submit evidence for fear of reprisal. Lori Schulman:We are on record with a bad practices letter that was submitted to ICANN compliance last year. Lori Schulman:I can send letter to the list. John McElwaine:Its not only reprisal, but there are concerns of attorney/client privilege and waiver in providing such examples. Robin Gross:I agree with Jeff. George Kirikos:I agree with Jeff that 'evidence' should be the major impetus for change. However, one can also use reason and logic to justify changes, especially when there are scenarios that were not contemplated when the policy was put into place. George Kirikos:e.g. the limitation period for bringing disputes doesn't appear to have even been contemplated. Getting rid of that absurd scenario (where someone could initiate a PDDRP, when they could not file in court) would make sense, even if there's no "data" behind it since no disputes have ever even been filed. Darcy Southwell:Agree with Jeff - "evidence" needs to be presented that indciates a change is needed - otherwise we're trying to "fix" or "improve" upon something we don't know is a problem Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):was the behaviour allowed by the legal framework? Lori Schulman:Just sent INTA letter to Terri for posting. Mary Wong:Thanks, Lori. Paul Tattersfield:@George as well as time limitations there should be something to stop vexatious filings Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):As far as I know - the pricing is not regulated George Kirikos:In particular, it might be 10+ more years that these policies might be reviewed again within ICANN, so it makes sense to fix some absurdities. Lori Schulman:Also, INTA is planning an anonymized study on effect of new gTLD program and RPM's. We are hoping for more data based on anonymous responses to avoid the issues with reprisal, attorney client privilege, etc. George Kirikos:Right, Paul. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:What vexation filings???? Lori Schulman:Already sent. Mary Wong:All, just FYI - 18 respondents to the Doodle poll. All support not discussing burden of proof any further at this stage in the PDP. George Kirikos:Were we supposed to talk about the TMCH? (10 minutes ago) George Kirikos:I guess we're on it now. Jeff Neuman:I will put in my standing comment in the entire document which is that I believe the status quo with respect to the PDDRP (both substantive and procedural) should be maintained unless there is a good reason to change it. By good reason I mean that it should be the burden of those requesting a change to show good cause as to why it should be changed. Good reason should be supported by evidence. Caroline Chicoine:Sorry, but need to sign off Laurie Anderson:+1 Jeff Jeff Neuman:Mary - Can my note be added to the minutes or notes as a standing comment Mary Wong:@Jeff, sure. David Maher (PIR):+1 Jeff George Kirikos:We're getting a few more Doodle poll results (up to 20 participants now). http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm Folks might want to take a few minutes after this call to fill it out, if they've not already done so. Jeff Neuman:I think the subgroup should work on getting any and all information that people are willing to make available. Public or not. Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. George Kirikos:Bye folks. Laurie Anderson:Bye all Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Thanks everyone, bye! Luc Seufer:bye all Jeff Neuman:bye Georges Nahitchevansky:Thanks everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Bye! Robin Gross:bye Elizabeth Featherman:bye!

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for the WG call on Wednesday 10 August
by Paul Keating Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Please accept my regrets but I now have a client conference call that conflicts with this WTC call. Paul Keating From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 11:33 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for the WG call on Wednesday 10 August > Dear Working Group Members, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, > scheduled for Wednesday 10 August at 1700 UTC: > > 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/audio bridge only); updates to Statements > of Interest > > 2. Finalize and agree on: (i) follow up questions to the three TM-PDDRP > Providers; (ii) questions for proposed Community Survey; and (iii) follow up > with ICANN Compliance (see attached document) > > 3. Continue discussion on Issues/Concerns/Suggestions with the TM-PDDRP > (see attached document and additional notes below) > > 4. Initial Report from TMCH Sub Team (see attached document) > > 5. Next steps/next meeting > > > For Agenda Item #2 please note that the questions for (i) and (ii) remain > unchanged from the version circulated on 5 August; the text for (iii) was > added but is taken from the previous Issues/Concerns/Suggestions document. > > For Agenda Item #3 this has been updated from the 5 August version > circulated previously. Please note that while the changes were based on > staff¹s subsequent consultation with the co-chairs, the co-chairs have not had > a chance to review the actual changes made. > > For Agenda Item #4 the TMCH Sub-team has prepared an Initial Report of its > activities to date. > > All documents referenced in this email have also been posted to the Working > Group wiki space for your easy reference: > https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. For Members who have not yet filled out > the Doodle poll on the mediation option and burden of proof, please do so by > FRIDAY 12 AUGUST here: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. > > Finally, a gentle reminder: Members who unable to attend the meeting are > kindly requested to send your regrets to the GNSO Secretariat at > gnso-secs(a)icann.org. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889 > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Administrative notes (especially for newer Members and Observers)
by Mary Wong Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Dear all, Since we have had a few more members and observers sign up for our Working Group in the last few weeks, staff thought it would be helpful to recirculate the mini-FAQ from July. Please see below for the contents, and please contact us if you have a question that is not answered either there, or via the Newcomers’ Webinar materials (http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…) or the GNSO Learn online course (http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) - whether about this Working Group, the GNSO Policy Development Process more generally, or the structure and functions of the GNSO. Please note specifically that Observers do not receive the weekly call-in numbers and virtual meeting room details, and that Members who are not able to attend a meeting are kindly requested to inform the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs(a)icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org)> if at all possible. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 14:33 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: A few notes on administrative matters and logistics of participation in the Working Group Dear all, In view of a few queries we have been receiving, staff thought it might be helpful to compile the following mini-FAQ regarding where and how to find information, and who to direct questions to: 1. Who can join the Working Group (WG) calls? Only WG members may join the weekly calls (unless exceptions are made for certain calls and announced beforehand). Call-in and Adobe Connect details are therefore sent only to WG members via the “ntfy” mailing address – members are requested to not circulate these details without first consulting the WG co-chairs. However, WG sessions held during ICANN Public Meetings are generally open to all – including Observers and members of the public. Remote participation and call-in details for these open sessions are normally posted on the ICANN meeting schedule and also mirrored/compiled by the GNSO Secretariat for the convenience of GNSO community members. 2. As an Observer, if I can’t join the calls how can I follow the WG discussions that take place on the calls? All WG calls – including Sub Team calls – are recorded and transcribed. Along with the weekly agenda, documents and Adobe Connect virtual meeting room chat transcript, these are all uploaded to the WG online wiki space shortly following each call: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw. 3. I’m a WG Member but can’t attend a particular call. Who do I inform and why do I need to do that? If you are not able to be on a call, please inform the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs(a)icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org)> as soon as possible. Please refrain from sending apologies to the whole email list ☺ Per GNSO guidelines and practice, attendance is taken on every call – and in the WG’s Final Report these numbers are reported so being able to record who was absent with/without apologies is helpful for purposes of ensuring accuracy. 4. How do I change my status from Observer to Member (and vice versa)? It’s simple - just email the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs(a)icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org)> with your request. For Observers who wish to become Members, please note that this will entail your filling out a Statement of Interest if you have not done so previously. 5. Who do I contact if I have any other questions? Feel free to contact any of the staff members who are supporting this WG at any time! Besides myself, David Tait and the GNSO Secretariat are also always available to assist if we can. 6. Where can I find more information about how to participate more effectively online? · The next GNSO Working Group Communications Tools webinar is scheduled for 26 July 2016 at 1300 UTC. If you’re new to the GNSO or this Working Group, or simply have questions about Adobe Connect, the WG wiki or other online mechanisms used for ICANN/GNSO policy work, you can sign up for this webinar here: http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU. · There are also several online modules and toolkits that we continue to develop, to assist newcomers with participation - there is a general module at http://learn.icann.org/courses/newcomer-toolkit (about ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior and Mailing List Etiquette) and Policy Staff have developed one specifically for the GNSO as well: http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso (covering the GNSO structure, Council, and the development of ICANN Consensus Policy). Thank you! Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you have questions or suggestions. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Agenda and documents for the WG call on Wednesday 10 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Dear Working Group Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 10 August at 1700 UTC: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/audio bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize and agree on: (i) follow up questions to the three TM-PDDRP Providers; (ii) questions for proposed Community Survey; and (iii) follow up with ICANN Compliance (see attached document) 3. Continue discussion on Issues/Concerns/Suggestions with the TM-PDDRP (see attached document and additional notes below) 4. Initial Report from TMCH Sub Team (see attached document) 5. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2 – please note that the questions for (i) and (ii) remain unchanged from the version circulated on 5 August; the text for (iii) was added but is taken from the previous Issues/Concerns/Suggestions document. For Agenda Item #3 – this has been updated from the 5 August version circulated previously. Please note that while the changes were based on staff’s subsequent consultation with the co-chairs, the co-chairs have not had a chance to review the actual changes made. For Agenda Item #4 – the TMCH Sub-team has prepared an Initial Report of its activities to date. All documents referenced in this email have also been posted to the Working Group wiki space for your easy reference: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. For Members who have not yet filled out the Doodle poll on the mediation option and burden of proof, please do so by FRIDAY 12 AUGUST here: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. Finally, a gentle reminder: Members who unable to attend the meeting are kindly requested to send your regrets to the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Action items and follow up from the Working Group call of 3 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

Dear Working Group (WG) members, Please find attached: (1) an updated set of questions intended (in Part A) for the TM-PDDRP Providers and (in Part B) for the ICANN community via all the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees; and (2) the document summarizing the issues, concerns and suggestions that have been made by WG members via email and on recent WG calls. For (1) – please review the questions to ensure that the updates are an accurate reflection of the most recent WG discussions, and send any comments to this mailing list by Tuesday 9 August (ie before our next meeting). We hope to finalize the questions then so that they can be sent out as soon as possible thereafter. For (2) – please note that this continues to be a “work in progress” and will be updated as WG discussions progress. We have attempted to capture potential follow up items requiring discussion as well as possible next steps in the boxes that follow each of the major Parts (I, II, III). Members, please also fill out the Doodle straw poll containing questions on mediation and burden of proof if you have not done so already: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm (by 23:59 on Monday 8 August if possible). For further WG discussion: Based on the discussions and documents to date, staff believes that the following specific suggestions may require further deliberation by the WG – · The issue of remedies (e.g. specificity and sufficiency) · The introduction of a limitation period for filing a complaint · Whether specific outreach to the Registries Stakeholder Group at this time will be useful, on the specific question as to whether the informal pre-complaint notification procedure has ever been invoked and, if so, whether the issue was resolved without there being a need to invoke the TM-PDDRP (Staff Note: the Registries Stakeholder Group provided input to the WG’s original outreach request, but did not specifically address the TM-PDDRP) · Whether to reach out to other dispute resolution providers (e.g. Nominet, JAMS) to seek feedback on the mediation option · Whether to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Action Items from Working Group meeting of 27 July and a straw poll (for Members only)
by Mary Wong Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

Dear Working Group Members, Here are the Action Items from the Working Group meeting of 27 July 2016, as well as a note on their status and a link to a Doodle poll that we hope you will fill in at your earliest convenience (with reference to Action Item #1). 1. Staff to create and circulate a Doodle poll seeking Members’ views on whether to continue discussing the standard of proof issue at this stage of deliberations on the TM-PDDRP, and on adding voluntary online mediation as an option to the TM-PDDRP (with details to be further worked out) – DONE. Note: Please fill out this Doodle poll if you are a Member of the Working Group: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. 2. Staff to work with Brian Winterfeldt to draft follow-up questions for the TM-PDDRP Providers on joint complaints/consolidation, based on what has been discussed by the Working Group to date – IN PROCESS 3. Staff to inform the GNSO Council that, having done a straw poll of the WG membership, the co-chairs’ consensus view is that there is no need for the WG to conduct a face-to-face session at ICANN57 and that it might be more appropriate to have such a session at ICANN58 and/or ICANN59 – DONE. 4. Staff to work with the TMCH Sub Team to see if a revised timeline for delivery of their work output is needed (based on the discussion with the Analysis Group on 29 July) – IN PROCESS. 5. Staff to develop a Survey Monkey questionnaire – to be circulated to the IPC (and possibly the BC, per a suggestion from a co-chair following the Working Group meeting) – to seek information about whether there may have been a “substantial pattern or practice” of infringing behavior at the second level by new gTLD registry operators – QUESTIONS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY CO-CHAIRS. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

4 4

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 03 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 3, 2016

Aug. 3, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 03 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OxKbAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-03aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> 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#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 03 August 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group held on Wednesday, 03 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Hi VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:I am in Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi Terri, could you ask operator to call me in? (number in e-mail) Terri Agnew:Hi Maxim the op is calling you at this time VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:@Kathy @Teri @Maxim from Y'day @Jay @Petter greetings Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):thanks Paul Tattersfield:Hi all George Kirikos:Have no fear, George is here. :-) George Kirikos:(hi everyone) Martin Silva Valent:hi all! George Kirikos:Echo, echo.... George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Greg Shatan:Ironic that it came during the announcement to mute..... George Kirikos:Dog days of summer....woof. Yuri Chumak:hello all Kathy Kleiman:Hi All- Hope everyone's summer is going well. Paul McGrady:Good morning all! Kathy Kleiman:I greatly enjoyed the Latin American Internett Governance Forum in Costa Rica last week George Kirikos:Welcome, Kathy and Paul M. Mary Wong:These draft questions were just circulated to the mailing list, and incorporate some suggested edits from Brian Winterfeldt and his team to the staff draft we sent to them (per the WG agreement on the call last week). Marina Lewis:Hi everyone! George Kirikos:Hi Marina. Kathy Kleiman:+1 on neutrality Susan Payne:+1 on Supp Rules Griffin Barnett:Agree that this issue should be at the policy level rather than the Supplemental Rules level Griffin Barnett:I think the wording may just be to clarify that if this policy change is made to accommodate a joint complaint, that the supplemental rules may need to be amended accordingly Mary Wong:To expedite matters, WG members should also send comments to the mailing list between now and next week. Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:Good afternoon. Sorry I am late. I had a prior call run over. George Kirikos:Welcome, Lori. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):BRG? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):BRG are both brands and Registries George Kirikos:Perhaps those registered on the TMCH should also be surveyed, as they might not be active within the GNSO, but are still more vigilan than other markholders. Mary Wong:These questions were based on the suggestions made by J Scott and others on the call last week. Mary Wong:@George, we will need to figure out how to contact the TMCH registrants in that case, I suppose. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and BRG members are not usually participate in RySG meetings Paul McGrady:I would change "clients" to "people or entities you represent" and I think they should be sent out to everyone so that no one can claim later that they weren't given the same voice as IPC/BC in this process. Kathy Kleiman:I would revise Question 4 to start: "Has there been an *New gTLD* registry conduct... " since that is the scope of the current TM-PDDRP Paul McGrady:Every constituent element of ICANN: Constituencies, Advisory Committees, etc. Greg Shatan:Shatan rhymes with Manhattan.... Paul McGrady:+ Kathy Greg Shatan:and not rattan Edward Morris:Agree with Kathy and Paul. Mary Wong:By "everyone" do we mean all GNSO SG/Cs or all ICANN SO/ACs? khouloud Dawahi:couldnt agree more ,+1 kathy George Kirikos:Rhymes with "satin" but with a "Sh", Greg? Kurt Pritz:What is the purpose of question 1? We have to be careful that it not be used to establish the awareness level of RPMs generally as it is just asked of ICANN community members. Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:I agree with Paul and Kathy. All groups should be polled. Casting a wider net should give us more accurate results. Paul McGrady:@Mary: All ICANN. Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:I'll take Manhattan and Staten Island too. Sorry, couldn't help myself. Paul McGrady:For example, GAC is not technically part of GNSO, but we really would like to hear from them on these questions - especially because we don't want anyone to claim later they weren't asked. Kathy Kleiman:To Question #4 I would add at the end. If so, why? George Kirikos:For question 4, instead of making it a "Yes/No" question, it should be "If so, describe...." Greg Shatan:Kathy, can you expand on what the "why" refers to? Marina Lewis:I still think we she make an effort to target people or entities who would actually consider filing a PDDRP. Registries (even members of BRG) aren't likely to respond in the affirmative so I don't see the purpose of casting such a wide net. Am I missing something? Greg Shatan:Recognizing that #4 is now a moving target.... Marina Lewis:she = should Greg Shatan:Marina, I think the general distro is in addition to the targeting attempt, not instead of it. Greg Shatan:I see it more as a matter of transparency than anything else. That said, we may also ask whether the respondent is a TM owner (and this a potential plaintiff) or not. Questions 2 and 3 are really only relevant to trademark owners, so I'm not sure we should seek (or expect) answers to those questions from others. Caroline Chicoine:had issues getting on adobe so sorry if already raised, but on questions 2 and 3 to TM-PDDRP, I would change "If so, what are the limitations?" to be more neutral and say "If so, what, if any, limitations are there to consolidation" and add "If not, why do you believe such consildation would not be feasible/advisable." Marina Lewis:Thanks, Greg. Is there any concern for skewed results, such as a scenario where 45% of responses come from registries. I would suggest we have some mechanism to monitor responses in order to identify bias. Kurt Pritz:Building on Mary's comment on stakeholders being overloaded with questions: we should take care in approaching the GACnad manage expectation. Maybe tell them that we will be sending them x number of sets of questions with this time frame so they plan their work. Kurt Pritz:"in approaching the GAC and managing expectations." --- I think the GAC is a special case. Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:+1 Caroline's suggestion. I missed the beginning too. The questions should appear as objective as possible. Mary Wong:@Kurt, thanks - that's what we thought might be helpful, esp the GAC but possibly also other groups as a kind of head's up Paul McGrady:Agree we can't halt our work while waiting for non-responders, but at the same time I don''t think it makes any sense not to ask them just because we know they are busy. Kurt Pritz:We are most interested in IP and BC comments. When we send to them, say that there quick response is important. When we send to others, tell them the time is short but we did not want to omit them and if they cannot respond in time that we understand. Susan Payne:I think we should ask respondents to anonymise the registry name if they are concerned and jusr explain the circumstances of the case. our role is not to police a specific registry but to consider the issues which have arisen George Kirikos:+1 Susan. It's the abusive practise that is of concern, not the identity of any particular alleged abuser. Paul McGrady:Not only just concerned here about liabilty, but also concerned about throwing gas on the dying embers of last years' fire(s). Beth Allegretti:+1 Susan khouloud Dawahi:yes we should anonymise the registry name @susan but the case provided by them should be provided with specific details as well khouloud Dawahi:i believe George Kirikos:practice, even Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:Agree with Susan Susan Kawaguchi:Not sure I am concerned with naming the registry most people will know what registry is being described Susan Kawaguchi:by the bad behavior Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):maybe the text clearly should say that the example should be generalized (not to leave traces) Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:Some practices have been highly publicized. Some have not but i have heard some horror stories from nonprofits trying to register their trademarked names in the less publicized tlds George Kirikos:As long as they speak the truth, liability concerns are minimal. Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:It's not 1 registry. Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:It's many. Susan Kawaguchi:+1 kathy martín silva:+100 at lori Rebecca Tushnet:Agreed with Kathy: we should know what the real issues are. And we may have disagreements about whether the target actually facilitates infringement. Edward Morris:Less abstract the better. Kathy Kleiman:gorillas :-)! Marina Lewis:+1 Kathy. :) Paul McGrady:Let's allow them to name, but not require it. That said, I wonder if we are piling kindling on last years' fire(s) just to find something to fix in this policy because there isn't much that jumps out at us as needing to be fixed. khouloud Dawahi:my thumbs up for you @kathy us usual George Kirikos:There are other avenues for non-TM stuff, eg. FTC. George Kirikos:(in the US, i.e. for consumer protection) Kathy Kleiman:To Sarah: I think that is a fair question to ask Kurt Pritz:Sarah is saying, if you have seen violative behaviour, are you one with standing to bring a PDDRP action? George Kirikos:https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-prote… Marina Lewis:Are we trying to establish whether a respondent would have standing to file a PDDRP? I don't think it matters because this is all hypothetical...plus, an entity or person might have standing in the future and would consider an action them. Roger Baah:Hi All sorry am late. George Kirikos:Welcome, Roger. Better late than never. :-) Mary Wong:We're taking notes and will double check the transcript to make sure we capture all the suggestions. Thank you. Paul McGrady:Good discussion. Glad we get a second bite next week. Mary Wong:I believe we ar at the bottom of page 5 (burden of proof) so we should start with page 6 (heading under (iii); for Remedies) khouloud Dawahi:yes Kathy Kleiman:yes Marina Lewis:yes George Kirikos:I don't see the "limitation period" (e.g. statute of limitation) in the document. Mary Wong:Correct, Phil George Kirikos:That should be added, for clarity. Mary Wong:@George, sorry - this is the old document but we have noted that additional suggestion you made from last week. Maybe we can trouble you to bring it up again when we get to the bottom of this page/section? Sorry. George Kirikos:Ok. Mary Wong:Thank you! George Kirikos:For (iv), some TM offices don't have online sources to "link" to, so they should simply include the TM registration documents or number (and country). George Kirikos:(Apple is famous for filing some TMs in countries with no online interface/search, for "stealth" registration of marks for future products) Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: could you kindly include a question about laches or statue of limitations considerations? Tx! Sonigitu Ekpe:Greetings all sorry for been late Dominic DeLuca:Would UDRP Decisions be applicable to PDDRP disputes? George Kirikos:The time limit is based on the when the cause of action could have arisen (i.e. ALL the facts necessary to pursue the cause of action). George Kirikos:If the registry operator was a respondent in the UDRP, then it could be. George Kirikos:Or, was a related party to the UDRP respondent. George Kirikos:Statute of limitations would depend on the jurisdiction of the registry operator. Since, it would create an absurdity that someone could bring a PDDRP as an alternative to courts, when the court could never hear that complaint in the first place (because it was statute barred). Paul McGrady:+1 Susan. What are we trying to fix? bradley silver:+1 Susan Susan Payne:contract runs only for 10 years in any event Paul McGrady:Very complex solution to an unidentified problem. George Kirikos:I disagree, given that the jurisdiction for the PDDRP appeal to the courts is the jurisdiction of the registry. Edward Morris:Agree with Phil on uniform SOI George Kirikos:So, the jurisdiction of the registry operator sets the time limit for a dispute. Susan Payne:would need to be tied to the jurisdiction of the contract surely Jon Nevett:just an FYI -- SOL for breach of contract under California law is 4 years Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Kathy Kleiman:@Susan, that's an interesting issue: if the trademark rights after the Registry is created, does that raise special issues for consideration? Kathy Kleiman:I know this has been a problem in the UDRPs - trademarks arising after the domain name. George Kirikos:Echo, echo. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all , have to disconnect Philip Corwin:FYI, I posted this article on the Analysis group TMCH report -- http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160801_tmch_review_recommends_status_quo/ Terri Agnew:find the line Mary Wong:We're trying Mary Wong:Thanks Terri - you're way faster than I am! Griffin Barnett:Thanks all Georges Nahitchevansky:Thanks everyone. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Thanks Team Lori Schulman - INTA/IPC:Thank you Phil. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Look forward Mary Wong:Thanks Phil, everyone! Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye Elizabeth Featherman:Thank you Phil! George Kirikos:Bye folks. Roger Baah:bye khouloud Dawahi:thank you all Marina Lewis:bye everyone

1 0