Hi Marie and All, The question of whether the TMCH Database will remain closed or become open (or something in between) is one of our original TMCH Charter questions now moved until after our TM Claims and Sunrise Period discussions. We agree to return to it at the end of our TMCH review when we have more information. Quick note that we have heard from trademark experts on both sides of the issue: of the need for confidentiality and of concerns such confidentiality raises for oversight and transparency of the TMCH process. Much to discuss when we return to this issue/question! Best, Kathy On 6/12/2017 8:44 AM, Marie Pattullo wrote:
+ 1. I thought that discussion was closed. Marie
Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos
On 12 Jun 2017, at 14:43, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
I do not nor will I ever support disclosure of the marks registered in the TMCH.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
"what we don't know probably exceeds what we do²
Could NOT agree more.
I suggest we focus on what information we need in order to properly analyze and discuss the issue. For this I see us in need of the following:
A listing of the marks in the TMCH Information from registrars that may indicate abandonment in the context of the claims notice process. I cannot seriously believe that the registrars do not have this data given its importance in the continued process of refining the UI and maximizing revenues. If it is an issue of confidentiality, I am happy to limit the disclosure of the information to Staff or if that is not acceptable then to a third party who can be retained (and paid) to review and analyze the data for us. Failing that we could perhaps approach several of the larger registrars in this area (new Gtld registrations) and ask that they run a test for a specified period. IF that results in a delay we can defer this issue until we have the data.
Paul
On 6/9/17, 6:22 PM, "Phil Corwin" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
This thread has wound on quite a bit since Brian's original post, but since my name came up in his let me add a few thoughts.
Brian's email stated:
In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02
June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates... Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material difference between those subject to claims notices.
Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that ³An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.² A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%. I haven¹t reviewed the transcript of that call, but I just pulled the 80% number out of a hat and my intended point was that if there was just a small difference between abandonment rates of initiated domain registrations that did and did not generate claims notices then it might be reasonable to conclude that the received warning was having its intended targeted effect (deterring cybersquatting) and not causing significant abandonment of non-infringing domain registrations.
It appears that the GoDaddy cart abandonment statistics relate to general ecommerce websites and not specifically to registrar websites so it would be useful to get data from registrars as to what their general cart abandonment rate is. But if it is 68% for initiated domain registrations then the 94.7 abandonment rate measured by the Analysis group would be 39.2% higher and that would seem statistically significant and indicative that non-infringing registrations may be deterred. (Noting for the record that we don't know how many of the abandoned registrations measured by AG were never intended to go to completion but were initiated for other purposes -- and that of the abandoned attempts that were intended to be completed we have no way of knowing which were initiated by intentional cybersquatters and which came from innocent parties with no infringing intent and whose actual domain use would not have been infringing.)
We also don't know the effect of a claims warning receipt on an intentional cybersquatters versus innocent would-be registrants. Just as warning signs of home security systems may not deter a professional burglar, intentional cybersquatters may know the risk of detection and factor it into their business model. On the other hand, outside the ICANN bubble, most would be domain registrants are unlikely to have a law degree and upon receiving a notice warning of potential legal consequences if they complete the transaction may decide they don't wish to expend half a month's grocery money to consult with a trademark attorney.
None of this is to say that the Claims Notice does not have merit or that we should not consider possible generation of notices, or at least notice to trademark holders of completed registrations, for some classes of non-exact matches. But it's clear that we also need more and better data because what we don't know probably exceeds what we do.
We should also be mindful that we must maintain a reasonable balance between the scope of this RPM and its impact on domain registrants with no infringing intent, especially if their actual use of the domain would be lawful. Let's take a pragmatic view and recognize that any policymaking exercise is not an academic but an inherently political process and that "politics is the art of compromise". Also, as contracted parties in the business of creating and selling domains make up half the GNSO Council that must approve our final work product (lest all our work be for naught) that would suggest that our work should seek to assure that Claims Notices perform their intended effect of effectively deterring intended cybersquatting while minimizing the deterrence of legitimate domain registrations.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:00 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
Volker:
Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call ³stickiness² of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the ³stickier² the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process.
Examples:
1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase
2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process
Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller.
Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel.
Best,
Volker
Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: Brain. Point taken. I don¹t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871|
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C0 1%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1 %7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata=h8qAN8le9SbhQvR0IawnyuRDu%2Fb1%2Bv2fpf bG6MNipug%3D&reserved=0 | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public
Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>;
Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM
Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf
of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better
information than
that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the
stage at
which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned.
It's my
understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the
notice
wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at
checkout.
If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our
only
recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian
<brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear all,
I¹m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data.
In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs ³regular² abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material difference between those subject to claims notices.
Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that ³An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.² A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
See
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godad dy.com%2Fgarage%2Fsmallbusiness%2Fmarket%2Feffective-strategies-to-boost-a bandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0 017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971 754867&sdata=PtxSnnbDMNsumNMyaHdzoZZY0jowSqg1LeeFXqplKq4%3D&reserved=0
and
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godad dy.com%2Fgarage%2Findustry%2Fretail%2Fecommerce%2Fwant-to-to-increase-sale s-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c001 7d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63632614597175 4867&sdata=aOJ1E7T6ITmYfP4bMNsvQ7dJAj3QrswMl4YK42BQp6c%3D&reserved=0.
There are many articles on this topic with varying
figures, but they tended
to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling ³a significant difference in the completion of registration.²).
It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C 01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee 1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=lenvIEKAPus7F2zCjYUJaxaYKhFe8%2B8rBpf ZriFt75Y%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c00 17d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261459717 54867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c00 17d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261459717 54867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc 47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261508691 81271&sdata=ma0nDH%2FEJQFyw1WraCvCRa7PfRNCUnmMJvZhZGoIKMk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05 a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261672996 36350&sdata=4A94L2iwoH4V%2B4AxZA%2B3CHNCYXxC2CBQEtDmlr8O7rc%3D&reserved=0
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&dat a=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1 78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=O7GYi6gY6APoVPhRT4hwqA5bYqrcJF cjKFIPndRvG5s%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=0 2%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178d ecee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=IlooHlulVb9zrLGZNpG5QoKOEBZnxEzhh TnKAAp9IOg%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.co m&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=XEmSKo62nO3XoTmDdA0%2FzjG yP0JzWmK8BJmWy17uVoE%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&da ta=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c 178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=2bbhuhwhf2XotsRuCZUPyz9K9gXXM LTFurT83TZXiug%3D&reserved=0
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeyS ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=7jTA8d6MzALwTq10Bfly 8Wnn%2FYyIH%2BMrEcTbabYX4S4%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_s ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX 4TmzqRabJQNcQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02 %7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVL wMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&dat a=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1 78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=lzBW0gmVS%2B2UiQP%2F5JbtAH0kYu ORcuSconBPi71nSXc%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=0 2%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178d ecee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=h%2FZhphjPah4DyM%2FwgLEclR3CwJSHq ir1%2BwgU2iY6zoo%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.co m&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=sQ08paL2jRlhPaKbLexcKYaUs rq%2FN%2FZYvIWh2t8ijso%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&da ta=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c 178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=G%2BqbUbYGk%2Bq%2FP5bxZ52Td97 g8ohhviWTKMc68ParqJg%3D&reserved=0
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeyS ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=hnOE%2FO0fDsYe6Hl5ai 4pKcmbZ0IqvL%2BywEMsM6lNeAU%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_s ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX 4TmzqRabJQNcQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02 %7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVL wMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05 a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261672996 46355&sdata=bwo8MiYipFMZb2OmjkIO00acK%2FnIxdmexwt%2BwHc8lkE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
!DSPAM:593e8c7d16851361214627!
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg