Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >Dear J. Scott and all: > >I would also support attempting to obtain additional input on the survey >questions by re-circulating. When the survey was first circulated I >think there may have been some miscommunication or lack of clear >communication as to when prospective survey respondents must submit >responses before the survey closed. Given that there are still other open >areas in connection with the PDDRP, I don't see any harm in giving an >extended opportunity for additional input on this. > >With respect to the responses that have been collected to date, I agree >that despite the relatively small sample size, this Working Group should >not dismiss this input out of hand. This threatens the credibility of >our work. We should spend the time to thoroughly review and analyze the >input and discuss whether it makes sense to revisit preliminary >conclusions regarding the PDDRP. I am not suggesting we will ultimately >change course in terms of the conclusions, but believe we should be >deliberate in our approach. > >Best regards, > >Brian > > >Brian J. Winterfeldt >Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice >Mayer Brown LLP > > >-----Original Message----- >From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org >[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:22 AM >To: George Kirikos >Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey >Responses on TM-PDDRP > >Query to our group. If the majority feels the sample size is just too >small, what should we do? Ask for additional input by recirculating the >survey. Taking George's points and ignore the survey b/c the sample is too >small? Do other have another alternative? > > >J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >Domains & Marketing | >Adobe >345 Park Avenue >San Jose, CA 95110 >408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >jsevans@adobe.com >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: > >>J. Scott: >> >>Your first email asked for "Thoughts?" and "Discussion"? Then, after >>receiving my thoughts and discussion on the survey, you attempted to >>delegitimize those thoughts and discussion by saying what you said: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you >>want >>to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it gave >>us >>a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction opposition >>to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would >>suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do >>outreach." >> >>with the entire basis of that statement ("Just because...") based on a >>false premise that I'm against changing the PDDRP. A false premise. I >>simply pointed out simple truths, a total sample size of only 16, with >>only 5 in favour of PDDRP changes. If those observations were so >>"dangerous" that you "couldn't argue statistics", but instead sought >>to attack the person making them, that says a lot about the strength >>of your arguments. >> >>And then you made the reckless suggestion that folks should be >>attempting to artificially affect the outcome of the PDP by "rallying" >>people who "share your views". >> >>I don't have any "anti-IP animus" --- I've long been opposed to >>cybersquatting! I've even assisted TM holders pursue cybersquatters. I >>am against *over-reaching* by some TM holders and am in favour of >>*balanced* policy that protects the interests of domain name >>registrants, in accordance with established law. >> >>Stop trying to label people, and instead listen to the arguments and >>facts they put forward. >> >>Here were the undeniable FACTS: 16 total response, 5 in favour of PDDRP >>changes. >> >>In my view, as I said before, the sample size is too small, and there >>were flaws in the survey where the numbers didn't add up properly. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>George Kirikos >>416-588-0269 >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> >>wrote: >>> George: >>> >>> I apologize if you feel attacked. That was not my intent. It was, >>>however, >>> my intent to point out that our group reached out to the community for >>> feedback. We got that feedback and it gave us a directive. If we >>>applied >>> your same argument, I could say that the anti-IP sentiments of the NCUC >>> have been championed for over 18 years by no more than 10 people who >>>claim >>> to represent all non-contracted, non-commercial parties. That said, and >>> despite only seeing the same voices raise the same concerns time and >>>time >>> again, we have listened, debated, re-debated, and sought input. The >>> issues/concerns of these parties are always on the table despite only >>> being put there by a very small group of people. So, I think we should >>> take into account the call for change in the PDDRP and take action. >>>Others >>> may disagree and our consensus may be that we should not take action. >>> >>> Finally, I follow your work in many working groups and, IMHO, you have >>>a >>> clear anti-IP animus and I do believe that flavors your positions. I >>>may >>> be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion and I can express it. It is >>>not >>> meant to insult you or demean your positions. It is meant to call a >>>spade >>> a spade. I am pro-IP and proud of it. I will advocate for trademark >>>owners >>> when not acting in my capacity of chair. As Chair, it is my duty to >>>make >>> sure ALL viewpoints are heard and considered, even those with which I >>> strongly disagree. >>> >>> J. Scott >>> >>> >>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >>> Domains & Marketing | >>> Adobe >>> 345 Park Avenue >>> San Jose, CA 95110 >>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >>> jsevans@adobe.com >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of >>>George >>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>J. Scott: >>>> >>>>What are you talking about? I've already made it clear (during the >>>>calls) that I'm in *favour* of improving the PDDRP! Perhaps you've not >>>>been paying attention. For you to attack my earlier response on the >>>>basis that the "input" is in "opposition to (my) personal position" is >>>>ridiculous. I would have made the comments I made regardless of my own >>>>position, for the clear and logical reasons I stated, which had >>>>absolutely nothing to do with the actual answers to the survey but >>>>instead were based on (1) total number of responses and (2) numbers >>>>not adding up properly. >>>> >>>>Furthermore, to suggest that *anyone* in the group should "rally those >>>>who share your views the next time" is entirely inappropriate, in my >>>>opinion. It's suggesting that instead of this working group doing a >>>>"scientific" survey, a *representative* sample of the population of >>>>stakeholders, that folks should instead be engaged in electioneering >>>>in order to artificially manipulate the outcome. For that suggestion >>>>to come from one of the co-chairs of this working group is even more >>>>disturbing. >>>> >>>>Lastly, I properly noted that there were a total of 5 people (out of >>>>16 survey participants) believe that the PDDRP should change. That's >>>>31.25%, a mathematical fact. You might label that an "overwhelming" >>>>response and a "clear direction", but I disagree, for the reasons I >>>>stated in my first email, and say so *despite* my own personal opinion >>>>on the issue. >>>> >>>>Sincerely, >>>> >>>>George Kirikos >>>>416-588-0269 >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> >>>>wrote: >>>>> George: >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you >>>>>want >>>>> to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it >>>>>gave >>>>>us >>>>> a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction >>>>>opposition >>>>> to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would >>>>> suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do >>>>> outreach. >>>>> >>>>> J. Scott >>>>> >>>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >>>>> Domains & Marketing | >>>>> Adobe >>>>> 345 Park Avenue >>>>> San Jose, CA 95110 >>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >>>>> jsevans@adobe.com >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of >>>>>George >>>>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>1. The sample size appears to be 16 (from Q2), so the statistical >>>>>>margin of error for such a small sample size is enormous. The total >>>>>>number of respondents who "overwhelmingly" believe that the PDDRP >>>>>>should change is 5 (answer to Q10), which is actually 31.25% of those >>>>>>who participated in the survey (5 of 16). >>>>>> >>>>>>2. Many of the numbers don't add up. e.g. >>>>>>(a) for Q4, there were 19 responses, despite the sample size being >>>>>>16! >>>>>>(b) for Q9, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have >>>>>>been is 5 (given there were 5 "yes" responses in Q7). >>>>>>(c) for Q10, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have >>>>>>been is 5 (given there were 5 "no" responses in Q9). >>>>>> >>>>>>There were only 9 visible answers (i.e. there was no Q1 shown in the >>>>>>document), so it's disturbing that one-third of the survey results >>>>>>don't add up properly. I'm not sure what software was used to display >>>>>>the survey, but tools like SurveyMonkey, etc. usually allow >>>>>>"conditional branching" or "skip logic" to only show some questions >>>>>>to >>>>>>people who answer a prior question in a certain manner, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> Wow. The respondents seem to really believe (overwhelmingly so) >>>>>>>that >>>>>>>we >>>>>>>need >>>>>>> to amend the PDDRP to make is useable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? Discussion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J. Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >>>>>>>Domains >>>>>>> & Marketing | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adobe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 345 Park Avenue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> San Jose, CA 95110 >>>>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >>>>>>> jsevans@adobe.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait >>>>>>> <david.tait@icann.org> >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM >>>>>>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and >>>>>>>Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further to my previous email I attach a further revised version of >>>>>>>this >>>>>>> document which (following a request from the co-chairs) now >>>>>>>contains >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> graphs once again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 >>>>>>> To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and >>>>>>>Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Jeff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further to your previous email I am pleased to attach a >>>>>>>consolidated >>>>>>>version >>>>>>> of the responses received. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 >>>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" >>>>>>> <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and >>>>>>>Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Mary for this. Is there a way to combine all of the written >>>>>>> responses in the summary document as well especially to questions >>>>>>>6, >>>>>>>7, >>>>>>>8, >>>>>>> 10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >>>>>>> >>>>>>> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T: +1.703.635.7514 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> M: +1.202.549.5079 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Jintlaw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org >>>>>>>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] >>>>>>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM >>>>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You will recall that the Working Group had agreed to resume >>>>>>>deliberations >>>>>>> over the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure >>>>>>>(TM-PDDRP) >>>>>>> after receipt of responses from the TM-PDDRP providers and closure >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> Community Survey. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We received responses from two providers FORUM and WIPO, for >>>>>>>which >>>>>>>we >>>>>>> thank Brian Beckham, Ty Gray, Daniel Legerski and their colleagues. >>>>>>>We >>>>>>>also >>>>>>> collected sixteen community member responses to the TM-PDDRP >>>>>>>Community >>>>>>> Survey, including from registrars and intellectual property >>>>>>>rights-holders. >>>>>>> All the responses, as well as an aggregated data report on the >>>>>>>Community >>>>>>> Survey, have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space >>>>>>>here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Working Group co-chairs have asked that Working Group members >>>>>>>review >>>>>>> these responses in time for our next call on 19 October 2016, >>>>>>>where, >>>>>>>if >>>>>>>time >>>>>>> permits, we will start discussing them. At the moment, we >>>>>>>anticipate >>>>>>>that a >>>>>>> fuller review, including community participation, will be the focus >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> Working Group¹s open meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. This will >>>>>>>allow >>>>>>>us to >>>>>>> complete this initial review of the TM-PDDRP shortly thereafter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI the tentative date and time of the open Working Group meeting >>>>>>>at >>>>>>>ICANN57 >>>>>>> is currently Monday 7 November (Day 5 of the meeting), from >>>>>>>11.00-12.30 >>>>>>> local Hyderabad time. As with all these sessions, remote >>>>>>>participation >>>>>>> facilities will be made available for those who will not be present >>>>>>>in >>>>>>> Hyderabad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mary >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mary Wong >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Director >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: mary.wong@icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <ACL> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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. > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg