August 2015 - IPC-GNSO - lists.icann.org

Fw: [council] FW: Correspondence from Steve Crocker to Jonathan Robinson
by Heather Forrest Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear colleagues, In the attached letter, Steve Crocker communicates the Board NGPC's request that the GNSO take up the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal in the subsequent new gTLD rounds policy development processes. Best wishes, Heather From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 28 July 2015 06:57 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: Correspondence from Steve Crocker to Jonathan Robinson Dear Jonathan, Attached please find the correspondence from Steve Crocker. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: Wendy Profit [mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org] Sent: mardi 28 juillet 2015 02:28 To: Glen de Saint Géry <gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso-secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>; Erika Randall <erika.randall(a)icann.org<mailto:erika.randall@icann.org>>; Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: Correspondence from Steve Crocker to Jonathan Robinson Dear Glen, Please forward the attached correspondence from Steve Crocker to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chairman regarding the ICANN New gTLD Program Committee Resolutions concerning exclusive registry access for gTLD strings representing generic terms. I will ensure the letter is posted on both the ICANN Correspondence and New gTLD Correspondence pages. With kind regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Support Specialist 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: 1-310-773-6811 Office: 1-310-578-8695

3 3

FW: FINAL - Agreed text for IANA Service Level
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

All, A few weeks back, several people had asked about whether the community was working on Service Level Expectations for the IANA Functions once the transition was finalized. A group of gTLD reps and ccTLD reps (the primary technical customers of IANA) have been working with IANA staff on coming up with a framework to determine the service levels. Attached is the framework we came up with after a number of meetings and calls. Although the community (prior to our establishment) stated that they were all content with the current performance of IANA, the reality is that very little about their performance was actually accurately measured. In addition, IANA did not (and still does not) have in place the appropriate tools to measure their performance. Though the Department of Commerce had a few service level expectations, they were very vague and all reliant on self-certifications. This framework calls upon IANA to develop the measurement capabilities, measure their performance and then meet with the CWG (or delegates of the CWG) to determine the actual Service Level Expectations. We would love to have your feedback and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. This draft has been forwarded to the CWG for their feedback as well. 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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 7:11 AM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: FINAL - Agreed text for IANA Service Level (apologies for cross posting) Dear all, I am delighted to attach the agreed Service Level Expectation document, containing the specifics of what ICANN/IANA has agreed to monitor and report. I would like to thank the members of the working group, (Elaine Pruis, Jeffrey Eckhaus, Jeff Neuman, Patricio Poblete, Jay Daley, Adam Smith and ICANN/IANA; Kim Davies, Bernard Turcotte, Elise Gerich, David Conrad) for their dedication and professionalism over the past months. They contributed to over 300 hours of discussions, 8 full WG meetings, 15 sub-group meeting and countless emails ... and it is with pleasure I advise that the first phase is done. I'd also like to thank ICANN staff for their support in facilitating the WG discussions. ICANN/IANA will now plan the scope of work to implement this SLE, operating the service in a test phase/parallel mode to start the necessary real-world data capture. Please circulate the agreed SLE document as you consider appropriate which demonstrates ICANN/IANA's commitment to enhanced reporting and transparency post transition which I am confident will be welcomed by the global community. Kind regards Paul Kane SLE WG Chair.

3 2

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: The Latest Update on the Board's Review of the CCWG Proposal
by Greg Shatan Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

All, Here is the latest on the CCWG-Accountability proposal, in particular ICANN's (i.e., the Board and Jones Day) review of the proposal. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:38 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: The Latest Update on the Board's Review of the CCWG Proposal To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-latest-update-on-the-board-s-review-of-… As reported Wednesday <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…>, the Board is engaged in full review of the CCWG-Accountability proposal. In line with our commitment to be open and transparent about our process, we are using this space to update the community on our next steps. A subset of the ICANN Board and staff members finished a productive series of meetings this week focused on the CCWG proposal. We shared Wednesday that as part of this meeting, the group held a call with the CCWG Chairs, and met with several advisors. Additionally, we met with Larry Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator. The Board also held an informational call today. We would like to thank everyone for their time and valuable contributions to our discussion. Also, as reported earlier this week, we have received an impact analysis of the proposal from our external counsel Jones Day. The impact analysis has been posted to the Public Comment forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdf5bBqNG…> [PDF, 539 KB]. On Monday 31 August, the CCWG will hold a 90-minute call at 22:00 UTC to brief the Board on its proposal, and also provide an opportunity for discussion. Details of the call will be posted to the CCWG wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…> so that anyone in the community may participate. On Wednesday 2 September, the Board and the CCWG will hold a call for the Board to share its feedback on the proposal. This call will take place at 22:00 UTC and can be streamed live throughAdobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dialogue/>. There will also be an opportunity for a follow up call if needed. After those conversations with the CCWG, the Board will post its comments in the Public Comment forum. We are committed to working productively and constructively to achieve a successful IANA Stewardship transition and an ICANN with enhanced accountability. We remain appreciative and supportive of the CCWG's valuable work. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] FW: August 2015 ICANN Policy Update
by Greg Shatan Aug. 29, 2015

Aug. 29, 2015

FYI. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:12 AM Subject: [Soac-infoalert] FW: August 2015 ICANN Policy Update To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> View this email in your browser <http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d9a840dd…> <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Share <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Tweet <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> <http://us3.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d…> Forward <http://us3.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d…> ASO <#14f656b55291db97_ANSO> | ccNSO <#14f656b55291db97_ccNSO> | GNSO <#14f656b55291db97_GNSO> | ALAC <#14f656b55291db97_ALAC> | GAC <#14f656b55291db97_GAC> | RSSAC <#14f656b55291db97_RSSAC> | SSAC <#14f656b55291db97_SSAC> Public Comments Contribute to Policy Development Processes and Proposals ------------------------------ A fundamental principle of ICANN's commitment to accountability and transparency is providing opportunities for input and feedback from the community. ICANN achieves this through the public comment process. In this month's issue we note a number of important public comment developments. Currently, a public comment proceeding on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments recommended by the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group's Final Report seeks community opinions about three new GNSO process recommendations. A Final Report produced by the Working Group recommends improvements to the GNSO Council's ability to respond to policy and implementation matters by using new standardized mechanisms instead of existing ad hoc processes. The ICANN Board has asked for community input on the recommendations before it takes any action. (Read more in this issue.) Last month, I wrote a blog post explaining the policy development process as it relates to the GNSO Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Initial Report. That public comment proceeding recently received a remarkable 11,000+ public comments, highlighting the importance of the issue to our community and general interest on the topic from Internet users. The Policy Development Support staff is now working diligently on summarizing the large number of public comments in order to publish a summary report for community review as soon as possible. Of course, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group recently posted for input the consolidated proposal for the future of the IANA functions, and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability also published for feedback its second draft report. This issue examines those comment opportunities as well. Whether core policy development work or strategic proposals, we encourage you participate in ICANN's public comment process. Public comment strengthens the multistakeholder model and distinguishes our bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development work. Best regards, David Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Istanbul Hub Office Policy Across ICANN Issues Currently Open for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Supporting Organizations (SOs) ASO ------------------------------ Three Policy Proposals for APNIC40 <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Regional Internet Registries Number Resource Policy Discussions <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> GNSO ------------------------------ GNSO Council Adopts Review of GAC Buenos Aires Communiqué <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> GNSO Council Grants Extension for Delivery of Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group Publishes Initial Report for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Policy & Implementation Working Group's Proposed Bylaw Changes Open for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> Advisory Committees (ACs) ALAC ------------------------------ ALAC Creates New Taskforce to Review At-Large Structure Criteria and Engagement <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> ALAC Ratifies Statement on GNSO Review Draft Report <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> RALO Round-Up <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> GAC ------------------------------ Notification List for Country Names as Domains <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> ------------------------------ *Copyright © 2015 ICANN, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you are a valued subscriber to Policy Update. Due to your loyalty, ICANN’s multistakeholder model remains vibrant and productive. Thank you for your continued readership. *Our mailing address is:* ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Add us to your address book <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/vcard?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=02716…> unsubscribe from this list <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> update subscription preferences <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/profile?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=027…> _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard - ICANN CEO Blog
by Greg Shatan Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

FYI. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 28, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard - ICANN CEO Blog To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> [image: Beta kpi dashboard 750x426 28aug15 en] After over a year of building ICANN's management discipline and solidifying our planning cycle <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/planning-en>, I am pleased to announce that today we've published a beta version of the ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard which you can find here: https://www.icann.org/progress. The Beta KPI Dashboard, in addition to the Quarterly Stakeholder Calls <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/quarterly-reports-2014-11-13-en> that have been in place since the start of FY15, allow us to regularly report on progress made against ICANN's strategic and operating plans that the community have helped create. We established the Quarterly Stakeholder Calls and the KPI Dashboard to allow anyone to stay informed on ICANN's activities and to help take the reporting out of ICANN Meetings so we can use this valuable time for more robust discussions. The beta KPI Dashboard is aligned to the five objectives and 16 goals per the Five-Year Strategic and Operating Plan, and contains over 40 KPIs with data as of June 2015. This is a tool I use with ICANN's management to help bring clarity to discussions and track trends over time, and I am very pleased to be able to share this with you, so that you also have visibility of ICANN's work and can help keep the organization accountable. The Dashboard is a beta version, which means we are asking for your feedback to help us track the right KPIs and set the right targets. If there is something you don't agree with or doesn't quite make sense, please send your questions or comments to: dashboard-feedback(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dashboard-feedback(a)icann.org');>. There will also be a session at ICANN54 in Dublin covering more on the beta KPI Dashboard. Details - ICANN Blog David A. Olive Sent from my iPad

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Updating our Community on our Review of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal - ICANN Blog by Steve Crocker
by Greg Shatan Aug. 26, 2015

Aug. 26, 2015

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Updating our Community on our Review of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal - ICANN Blog by Steve Crocker To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Cc: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns < duncan.burns(a)icann.org> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-commsoacunity-on-our-review-of… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> Updating our Community on our Review of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> The Board is deeply engaged in reviewing the CCWG-Accountability proposal and has actively participated in the process. Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we would like to share with the Community the steps in our review process. Last week, the ICANN Board submitted a preliminary set of comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00006.…> to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment forum. The Board remains committed to engaging and working with the CCWG on solutions to address concerns raised in its preliminary set of comments. A subset of ICANN Board Members and Staff Members have been meeting in Washington, DC on Tuesday and Wednesday this week to further consider the CCWG proposal and commence a review of an impact analysis from ICANN's external counsel. As part of this meeting, the group held a call together with the CCWG Chairs. For full transparency and to clarify the basis for the review points and comments, ICANN will share the impact analysis and publish it in the CCWG Public Comment forum. The Board welcomes feedback from the CCWG on the impact analysis as it finalizes its responses to the CCWG proposal in the Public Comment forum. Next week, consistent with the CCWG request, the Board will have an open teleconference with the CCWG to help inform the Board's development of its comments to be submitted into the Public Comment forum before the close of the comment period on 12 September. Call details will be announced so that anyone in the community may participate. Finally, in light of the importance of these discussions, we propose that the CCWG-Accountability hold a public meeting in Los Angeles in late September to continue the dialogue with the Board on the CCWG proposal. As part of the ICANN community, we will continue to work constructively to help the CCWG finalize the proposal to achieve a successful IANA Stewardship transition and an ICANN with enhanced accountability. We remain appreciative of the CCWG's valuable work. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.olive(a)icann.org');> www.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] FW: August 2015 ICANN Policy Update
by Greg Shatan Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] FW: August 2015 ICANN Policy Update To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> View this email in your browser <http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d9a840dd…> <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Share <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Tweet <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> <http://us3.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d…> Forward <http://us3.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d…> ASO <#14f656b55291db97_ANSO> | ccNSO <#14f656b55291db97_ccNSO> | GNSO <#14f656b55291db97_GNSO> | ALAC <#14f656b55291db97_ALAC> | GAC <#14f656b55291db97_GAC> | RSSAC <#14f656b55291db97_RSSAC> | SSAC <#14f656b55291db97_SSAC> Public Comments Contribute to Policy Development Processes and Proposals ------------------------------ A fundamental principle of ICANN's commitment to accountability and transparency is providing opportunities for input and feedback from the community. ICANN achieves this through the public comment process. In this month's issue we note a number of important public comment developments. Currently, a public comment proceeding on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments recommended by the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group's Final Report seeks community opinions about three new GNSO process recommendations. A Final Report produced by the Working Group recommends improvements to the GNSO Council's ability to respond to policy and implementation matters by using new standardized mechanisms instead of existing ad hoc processes. The ICANN Board has asked for community input on the recommendations before it takes any action. (Read more in this issue.) Last month, I wrote a blog post explaining the policy development process as it relates to the GNSO Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Initial Report. That public comment proceeding recently received a remarkable 11,000+ public comments, highlighting the importance of the issue to our community and general interest on the topic from Internet users. The Policy Development Support staff is now working diligently on summarizing the large number of public comments in order to publish a summary report for community review as soon as possible. Of course, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group recently posted for input the consolidated proposal for the future of the IANA functions, and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability also published for feedback its second draft report. This issue examines those comment opportunities as well. Whether core policy development work or strategic proposals, we encourage you participate in ICANN's public comment process. Public comment strengthens the multistakeholder model and distinguishes our bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development work. Best regards, David Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Istanbul Hub Office Policy Across ICANN Issues Currently Open for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Supporting Organizations (SOs) ASO ------------------------------ Three Policy Proposals for APNIC40 <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Regional Internet Registries Number Resource Policy Discussions <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> GNSO ------------------------------ GNSO Council Adopts Review of GAC Buenos Aires Communiqué <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> GNSO Council Grants Extension for Delivery of Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group Publishes Initial Report for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Policy & Implementation Working Group's Proposed Bylaw Changes Open for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> Advisory Committees (ACs) ALAC ------------------------------ ALAC Creates New Taskforce to Review At-Large Structure Criteria and Engagement <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> ALAC Ratifies Statement on GNSO Review Draft Report <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> RALO Round-Up <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> GAC ------------------------------ Notification List for Country Names as Domains <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> ------------------------------ *Copyright © 2015 ICANN, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you are a valued subscriber to Policy Update. Due to your loyalty, ICANN’s multistakeholder model remains vibrant and productive. Thank you for your continued readership. *Our mailing address is:* ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Add us to your address book <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/vcard?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=02716…> unsubscribe from this list <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> update subscription preferences <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/profile?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=027…>

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Report/Webinar: WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System
by Greg Shatan Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

This will be of particular interest. Note the upcoming webinar. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *GDD Communications* <gdd-communications(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 24, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Report/Webinar: WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Dear ICANN Community members, Today ICANN published the Phase 1 Report of the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System <http://whois.icann.org/en/file/whois-ars-phase-1-report-syntax-accuracy> (ARS), which provides information about the syntax accuracy of WHOIS records in gTLDs as compared to the requirements of the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs). The report details the methodology used to collect, test, and analyze the data and provides various cuts of the data as information for the community. Based on the data collected from the ARS, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team will be conducting follow up with registrars regarding potentially inaccurate records using the Contractual Compliance Approach and Process <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en>. As a reminder <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-08-12-en>, ICANN is holding a webinar that will focus on the findings of the report, and we’d like to invite you and your constituents to participate. Below you will find the information necessary to join us in the discussion. *Date / Time: 26 August 2015, 15:00 - 16:00 UTC *(time zone converter <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html>) *Adobe Connect:* https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gdd *Teleconference:* Download numbers now <http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/whois-ars-dial-in-numbers-…> (Passcode: GDD) This webinar will be conducted in English. Recordings will be published in the knowledge center of the WHOIS website at: http://whois.icann.org/en/knowledge-center. *Questions?* We encourage participants to come to the webinar with questions, as there will be a question and answer period after the presentation. The webinar will be recorded, providing those who are unable to attend the opportunity to listen at a later time. You can even pose additional questions to ICANN Global Customer Support at CustomerSupport(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CustomerSupport(a)icann.org');>. We look forward to discussing the Phase 1 Report with you on 26 August! Best regards, Jamie Hedlund V.P. Strategic Programs Global Domains Division

1 0

Welcome New IPC Members and Representatives
by Greg Shatan Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

Fellow IPC members, I would like to welcome 4 new members and 2 new member representatives to the IPC. Our new members are: ** *June Intellectual Property Services Inc.*, Istanbul, Turkey; representative , Dilek Ustun *Aleksandar Icokaev, *Popovski Law Office , Skopje, Macedonia *Nihan Guneli, *Guneli & Koc Law Firm , Istanbul , Turkey *Scott Austin* , VLP Law Group LLP , Fort Lauderdale , Florida , USA Our new member representatives are: *AIPLA, *Christina Gervasi *Marksmen*, Ken Taylor I am looking forward to working with each of our new members and representatives on our important work, and hopefully to seeing many of them in Dublin. Please welcome them all! Best regards, Greg Shatan President, IPC

6 5

Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
by Greg Shatan Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

By the way, here is the IETF's license to Association Management Services, a third party entity providing secretariat services to the IETF. I would be curious to know what people think of the quality control provisions (i.e., relating to the quality of goods and services, as distinguished from provisions relating to trademark usage), and of the license generally -- at least as a trademark license. Greg On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: > See http://trustee.ietf.org/IETFtrustAgreement20051208.pdf Pages 11-13. > > > > *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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 3:04 PM > *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com>; Jeff Neuman < > jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>; trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; PMC Grady < > pmcgrady(a)winston.com> > > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Goodwill always needs to be assigned with a trademark (at least under US > law). That said, I can't see any reason to expect or even suspect that the > IANA Trademarks will be transferred to a third party without the goodwill > appurtenant to the marks. > > > > Jeff -- if you recall, what was the "IP associated with the IETF > Secretariat functions"? Was the IETF trademark (and/or the IETF > SECRETARIAT trademark) part of that IP? > > > > It should be noted that the IETF Trust only owns three trademark > registrations, one for IETF, one for the IETF logo and one for IETF > SECRETARIAT (which it has explicitly decided to abandon). There is only > one licensee of the IETF trademarks -- to the IETF Secretariat. I'm not > sure that indicates any specific expertise in trademark license (noting > also that the IETF Trust does not appear to have any employees, and thus no > employees who would embody that expertise). > > > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > wrote: > > Anne, > > > > The IETF Trust was set up solely to manage the IP of the IETF. To make a > very long story short, It was a quid pro quo during the negotiations > between Bob Kahn’s who claimed to own the IP associated with the IETF > Secretariat functions, the IETF and ISOC leadership and Neustar who offered > to buy the Secretariat functions from Bob, but assign the IP rights to the > IETF Trust. Bob Kahn, for his own reasons, did not trust the ISOC or IETF > leadership to manage the IP at the time and wanted to ensure there was a > neutral entity that was established to manage the IP in the public > interest. Steve Crocker and I, on a flight back from an ICANN meeting in > Argentina, created the idea of the IETF Trust (and the initial set up > documents) to ease the concerns of Bob while at the same time ensuring that > the IP could be licensed to the IETF. > > > > All that aside, I still have the same questions (which Clarke also > raised). And that is the so what. Let’s assume the worst and the IANA > name is trashed for whatever reason. The IANA function is a unique > function which does not rely on its name. You could rebrand the function > ZZXYA, and that still would have little if any impact on the users of the > service. Aside from getting a new domain name (and learning how to > pronounce that new name J), it would have no effect on the users of the > service. It’s not a consumer product or service. No one outside the > industry knows the name anyway. > > > > I understand in the normal corporate transaction assigning the goodwill > associated with a transfer of the name is critical. I am just not sure of > whether that applies here at all. > > > > I am still waiting for a tangible example that someone has where it would > cause a huge issue. > > > > *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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:03 PM > *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>; trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; > PMC Grady <pmcgrady(a)winston.com> > *Cc:* gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > > > *Subject:* RE: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Jeff, just a note that Paul’s observations about the QC issue are very > important since a transfer of the marks without the good will renders the > transfer void and any license without real QC is a “naked license” and > likewise unenforceable. There is no reason IETF would know this. For some > reason I thought that Trust was formed to develop technical protocol, not > to manage IP, but you would know better than I. > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com <AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>* > > > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:41 AM > *To:* trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; PMcGrady(a)winston.com > *Cc:* ipc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Quick Correction – I think the SLEs we have been working on may be for the > CWG as opposed to the CCWG. It gets incredibly confusing. So all > references in my emails below to CCWG should really be CWG. > > > Thanks. > > > > *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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:42 AM > *To:* trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; PMcGrady(a)winston.com > *Cc:* ipc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Understood. That is more of a question for the CCWG, so I will throw this > over to Greg now. > > > > *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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com > <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20 AM > *To:* PMcGrady(a)winston.com; jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com > *Cc:* ipc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > And the plan should include what actions will be taken when 3rd parties > use the mark without permission. Ultimately budget will also need to be > set aside for such enforcement by whoever is doing it. > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Marc H. Trachtenberg* > Shareholder > Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL > 60601 > Tel 312.456.1020 > > Mobile 773.677.3305 > > trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com > > > > [image: Description: Greenberg Traurig] > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McGrady, Paul D. > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:54 AM > *To:* Jeff Neuman > *Cc:* IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Thanks Jeff. Yes, I think it would be good to see the report as soon as > practical. Good to know that the community will be monitoring SLEs. > However, that won’t absolve the trademark owner/licensor from doing so and > the QC’s have to have teeth. Since we will be handing a set of teeth to > someone, I think there needs to be some real thought put into it and a plan > published for public comment before it happens. > > > > *From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:45 AM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Greg Shatan; IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Paul, > > > > Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That > has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been > working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN > to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by > the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the > gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call > before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it > out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. > > > > It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases > the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not > been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to > measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on > past performance and industry norms. > > > > It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to > develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for > the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current > draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while > the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. > > > > I hope that helps. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jeff > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)winston.com> > wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief > that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and > copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will > the Trust ensure that IANA’s efforts are sufficient. > > > > With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now > with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent > performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANA’s future performance > to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout > the term of the license back arrangement? If IANA’s performance under an > un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under > political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, > what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license > to do so? > > > > The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental > ignorance of how trademarks work. You can’t separate the mark from the > goodwill and you can’t license without quality control standards. > Trademarks aren’t patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN > Board. > > > > So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this > kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be > accountable to? > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > > > > > > *From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com > <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Cc:* Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > All, > > > > The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the > Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the > Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the > then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An > amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP > Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too > complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP > so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the > evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have > the expertise. > > > > But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really > worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been > racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that > might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. > can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably > be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we > worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if > the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability > measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the > sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. > > > > I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns > we are worried about? > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> > wrote: > > Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms > of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If > they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality > control provisions in the license, right? > > > > *<image002.gif>* > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com <AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lrrlaw.com_&d=AwMFA…>* > > > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > *Cc:* IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, > representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The > IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the > IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether > they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and > that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not > clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark > counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. > > > > The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging > that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, > if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the > third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This > is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be > the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive > concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and > enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)winston.com> > wrote: > > Greg, > > > > Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for > that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is > ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a > very powerful position, indeed. > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > > > > *Paul D. McGrady Jr.* > > *Partner * > > *Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice * > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 (312) 558-5963 > > F: +1 (312) 558-5700 > > Bio > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-…> > | VCard > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_…> > | Email <pmcgrady(a)winston.com> | winston.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=AwMFA…> > > <image003.jpg> > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM > *To:* IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding > the IANA Trademarks and domain names. > > > > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 > Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual > Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > David A. Olive > > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul > > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, > Istanbul > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <+%201.%20202.341.3611> > > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > > Email: david.olive(a)icann.org > > www.icann.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=AwMFAw…> > > > > > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > _______________________________________________ > IPC-GNSO mailing list > IPC-GNSO(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > ------------------------------ > > If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged > information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at > postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. > > > ------------------------------ > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > >

8 18