Begin forwarded message:
> From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: April 10, 2013 11:06:54 AM PDT
> To: Fadi Chehade <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Mike O'Connor <[log in to unmask]>, James Bladel
> <[log in to unmask]>, Jeff Eckhaus <[log in to unmask]>,
> Antony Van Couvering <[log in to unmask]>, BretFausett Fausett
> <[log in to unmask]>, Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>,
> BenAnderson Anderson <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Wright
> <[log in to unmask]>, ElisaCooper Cooper
> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask] Leibovitch"
> <[log in to unmask]>, Fred Felman <[log in to unmask]>,
> Gustavo Lozano <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]
> Neuman" <[log in to unmask]>, Jim Waldron
> <[log in to unmask]>, Jon Nevett <[log in to unmask]>, Jonathan
> Robinson <[log in to unmask]>, KathyKleiman
> <[log in to unmask]>, Kathryn Park <[log in to unmask]>,
> Konstantine Komaitis <[log in to unmask]>, Martin Sutton
> <[log in to unmask]>, Matt Serlin <[log in to unmask]>,
> Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: what happened to your blog post that admitted expanding
> the scope of TM claims was a POLICY matter??? It appears to be
> removed from the web.
>
> Dear Fadi,
>
> What happened to your ICANN blog post where you had to change your
> characterization of our LA meeting to the following?:
>
>>>>> Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings previously
>>>>> found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for
>>>>> purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy
>>>>> matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a
>>>>> limited number of additional domain names with a trademark
>>>>> record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a
>>>>> court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on
>>>>> the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse
>>>>> record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance
>>>>> from the GNSO Council.
>>>>>
>
> It appears this blog post and key language is gone from the web
> now. Did staff subsequently decide to change its mind again and
> claim we said this was merely an implementation matter?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Fadi Chehade wrote:
>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I will address this as soon as I return from the WCIT. Thanks
>> four your patience.
>>
>> BTW - Some of the issues addressed in this conference may have a
>> profound impact on the net as we know it. Let's hope for the best.
>>
>> Fadi
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:37 AM, "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Karen, Fadi and all:
>>>
>>> I noticed that yesterday's update of staff's strawman solution
>>> still includes the proposal to expand the scope of trademark
>>> claims to so-called abused TMs+50, even though we were told in
>>> last Monday's call that that specific proposal was "deemed
>>> policy" and therefore outside the scope of what can be proposed
>>> without a proper policy process.
>>>
>>> We were told we would not be creating new policies with these
>>> discussions, but that is what this particular proposal is (and it
>>> even now is classified as "policy" on the web) so it does not
>>> belong in the strawman proposal.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is a coincidence or accident, but it seems the goal
>>> posts are shifting by staff and we deserve an explanation for how
>>> this policy could have been developed in this fashion and been
>>> included by staff in its strawman, given ICANN's stated
>>> commitment to following its own bottom-up policy development
>>> processes and given what we were told in the discussions.
>>>
>>> I've had a number of NCSG members ask for access to the
>>> transcripts / recordings of these policy discussions, so would
>>> also very much appreciate it if someone from staff would get back
>>> to me on that request. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for correcting the ICANN blog, Karen. But the language
>>>> is still the same in the actual strawman proposal posted for
>>>> public comment (this proposal is still called "implementation"
>>>> rather than classified as "policy"), so that should be corrected
>>>> too, as it is ICANN's official announcement.
>>>>
>>>> But how did this particular proposal, which is policy, find it's
>>>> way into the 'strawman solution' which states it doesn't delve
>>>> into policy and that it doesn't contradict GNSO policy? That
>>>> seems to be a mistake in need of correcting quickly.
>>>>
>>>> I'm additionally concerned that this strawman and ICANN's
>>>> announcement give the impression that the strawman was some kind
>>>> of negotiated consensus from the community. The strawman should
>>>> clarify that it is a series of executive decisions made by ICANN
>>>> staff. It really isn't fair to characterize this proposal as
>>>> coming from meeting participants. It is a staff proposal and
>>>> should be honestly labeled as such.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Karen Lentz <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the language in the blog posting may have been
>>>>> confusing, and we apologize for this. The intention was to
>>>>> indicate that the involvement of the GNSO is appropriate due to
>>>>> the policy considerations. The blog post has been updated as
>>>>> below with a note of clarification to address the ambiguity in
>>>>> the reference to this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings previously
>>>>> found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for
>>>>> purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy
>>>>> matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a
>>>>> limited number of additional domain names with a trademark
>>>>> record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a
>>>>> court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on
>>>>> the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse
>>>>> record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance
>>>>> from the GNSO Council.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote in the original version of this blog post: “the
>>>>> inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively
>>>>> registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark
>>>>> Claims can be considered implementation, as it provides a path
>>>>> for associating a limited number of additional domain names
>>>>> with a trademark record. This is consistent with the policy
>>>>> advice that trademark rights should be protected, and, given
>>>>> that the inclusion of such names would be only on the basis of
>>>>> a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding, the
>>>>> process would merely take into account names for which the
>>>>> issues have already been balanced and considered. However,
>>>>> given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of
>>>>> protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving
>>>>> the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO
>>>>> Council.” This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the
>>>>> nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen Lentz
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:00 PM
>>>>> To: James M. Bladel
>>>>> Cc: Jeff Eckhaus; Antony Van Couvering; Karen Lentz; Robin
>>>>> Gross; Fadi Chehade; Marilyn Cade; Bret Fausett; Alan
>>>>> Greenberg; Ben Anderson; Bryce Coughlin; Chris Wright; Elisa
>>>>> Cooper; [log in to unmask]; Fabricio Vayra; Fred Felman; Gerald
>>>>> Depardo; Gustavo Lozano; J. Scott Evans;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; Jim Waldron; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> Jon Nevett; Jonathan Robinson; Kathy Kleinman; Kathy Kleiman;
>>>>> Kathryn Park; Konstantine Komaitis; Kristina Rosette; Martin
>>>>> Sutton; Matt Serlin; [log in to unmask]; Susan K;
>>>>> Steve Metalitz; Steve Delbianco; Tony Holmes;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Wendy Seltzer;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Francisco Arias;
>>>>> Akram Atallah; Christine Willett; Margie Milam; John Jeffrey;
>>>>> David Olive
>>>>> Subject: Re: follow up/and scheduling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i was a little surprised to see this on in the "implementation"
>>>>> pile as well. here are my notes from that section of the
>>>>> call. sorry they're so sketchy. the call was not recorded
>>>>> (which i think we should change in the future but that's above
>>>>> my pay grade).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scope of TM claims
>>>>>
>>>>> conflicts with STI
>>>>> "identical match" question
>>>>> expands the scope beyond what is recommended by STI
>>>>> +- "timeline visibility" from ICANN may help with that
>>>>>
>>>>> reduced prices for typos - like .NU
>>>>> +- proposes limit of 50
>>>>> not found in STI discussion
>>>>> +- things that have been known to be abusively registrered
>>>>> UDRP, court record, NOT URS
>>>>> GNSO Council to give advice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 3:56 PM, "James M. Bladel"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I share the concerns raised by Jeff, Robin and others, and
>>>>> believe there would be value in seeing how Fadi / Staff arrived
>>>>> at this determination.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: follow up/and scheduling
>>>>> From: Jeff Eckhaus <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: Fri, November 30, 2012 3:47 pm
>>>>> To: Antony Van Couvering <[log in to unmask]>, Karen Lentz
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Cc: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>, Fadi Chehade
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Marilyn Cade
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Bret
>>>>> Fausett <[log in to unmask]>, Alan Greenberg
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Ben Anderson <[log in to unmask]>, Bryce Coughlin
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Wright
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Elisa
>>>>> Cooper <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Fabricio Vayra
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Fred
>>>>> Felman <[log in to unmask]>, Gerald Depardo
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Gustavo Lozano
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "J.
>>>>> Scott Evans" <[log in to unmask]>, James Bladel
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Jim Waldron <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, Jon Nevett
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Jonathan Robinson
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Kathy Kleinman <[log in to unmask]>, Kathy Kleiman
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Kathryn Park <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Konstantine Komaitis <[log in to unmask]>, Kristina Rosette
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Martin Sutton <[log in to unmask]>, Matt
>>>>> Serlin
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Mike O'Connor <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Susan K
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Metalitz <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Delbianco
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Tony Holmes
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Francisco Arias <[log in to unmask]>, Akram Atallah
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Christine Willett
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Margie Milam
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> John Jeffrey <[log in to unmask]>, David Olive
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A follow-up to Robin's and Antony's message on this topic and
>>>>> maybe the same question. You stated that you believed that
>>>>> this third term was consistent with the policy and thus
>>>>> considered implementation. I still would like to see the
>>>>> rationale behind the decision that this is considered the
>>>>> policy, and really what policy is this consistent with? It is
>>>>> very unclear and I think that a document that explains the
>>>>> policy and the thought process behind it would be very helpful.
>>>>> Also maybe if you could tie it into the slide that Margie put
>>>>> up on the screen on what is considered policy , that would be a
>>>>> big help
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Antony Van Couvering <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: Karen Lentz <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Cc: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>, Fadi Chehade
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Jeffrey Eckhaus
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Marilyn Cade
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Bret Fausett <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>, Ben Anderson
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Bryce Coughlin
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Wright
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Elisa Cooper
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Fabricio Vayra
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Fred Felman
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Gerald Depardo
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Gustavo Lozano
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "J. Scott Evans"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, James Bladel <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Jeff Neuman <[log in to unmask]>, "'Waldron, Joe'"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Jon Nevett <[log in to unmask]>, Jonathan
>>>>> Robinson <[log in to unmask]>, Kathy Kleinman
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Kathryn Park <[log in to unmask]>, Konstantine Komaitis
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Kristina Rosette <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Martin Sutton <[log in to unmask]>, Matt Serlin
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Mike O'Connor <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Susan K <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Metalitz <[log in to unmask]>, Steve
>>>>> Delbianco <[log in to unmask]>, Tony Holmes
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, Francisco Arias
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Akram Atallah
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Christine Willett
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Margie Milam
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, John Jeffrey
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, David Olive <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: follow up/and scheduling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I had a question very similar to
>>>>> Robin's, so I'm glad she asked it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly anything that treats of protecting intellectual
>>>>> property rights is "consistent" with existing policy, and hence
>>>>> from one perspective almost any measure, no matter how extreme,
>>>>> could be considered implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have hoped, however, that had progressed beyond such
>>>>> niceties. Fadi very clearly said during our meeting that he
>>>>> was "not comfortable" calling this an implementation detail and
>>>>> that it was "clearly" a policy matter, and so Robin was not the
>>>>> only one to have been startled to find the opposite emphasis in
>>>>> the blog post. Unfortunately these ambiguities tend the fray
>>>>> the trust that Fadi has worked so hard to build.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On another note, I see that the comment forum is up at the link
>>>>> you provided, but there is no link to the proposal itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Antony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Karen Lentz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Robin,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your message. If I can offer some
>>>>> clarification: on Monday’s call we discussed this third item
>>>>> (inclusion of strings previously found to have been abusively
>>>>> registered or used) as something that is consistent with the
>>>>> policy and could be considered implementation. However, given
>>>>> the work of the STI and the number of discussions held on this
>>>>> in the past, we were not comfortable proceeding without the
>>>>> guidance of the GNSO council. This is also what is stated in
>>>>> the blog, so there is no change from the position on the call.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, FYI, as discussed on Monday, the strawman is posted for
>>>>> public comment, and can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/
>>>>> news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen Lentz
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:59 AM
>>>>> To: Fadi Chehade
>>>>> Cc: Jeff Eckhaus; Marilyn Cade; Bret Fausett;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; Alan Greenberg; Ben Anderson; Bryce
>>>>> Coughlin; Chris Wright; Elisa Cooper; [log in to unmask]; Fabricio
>>>>> Vayra; Fred Felman; Gerald Depardo; Gustavo Lozano; J. Scott
>>>>> Evans; James Bladel; [log in to unmask]; Jim Waldron;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; Jon Nevett; Jonathan Robinson; Kathy
>>>>> Kleinman; Kathy Kleiman; Kathryn Park; Konstantine Komaitis;
>>>>> Kristina Rosette; Martin Sutton; Matt Serlin; Mike O'Connor;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; Susan K; Steve Metalitz; Steve
>>>>> Delbianco; Tony Holmes;
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask]; Wendy Seltzer;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Karen Lentz;
>>>>> Francisco Arias; Akram Atallah; Christine Willett; Margie
>>>>> Milam; John Jeffrey; David Olive
>>>>> Subject: Re: follow up/and scheduling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Fadi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the update. However, I'm confused about
>>>>> something the blog report of the meeting states because it
>>>>> differs from my understanding of Monday's conversation on the
>>>>> issue, so I was hoping you could clarify the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you had said on Monday's call that the proposal to
>>>>> expand the scope of trademark claims to so-called abused TM's
>>>>> +50 was "deemed policy" by staff, a position with which many of
>>>>> us agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However in this week's blog report about the meeting, it states
>>>>> under the Scope of Trademark Claims issue that expanding claims
>>>>> to so-called abused TMs+50 "can be considered
>>>>> implementation..." - an interpretation with significantly
>>>>> different ramifications.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Has staff shifted its view from Monday's call on this issue and
>>>>> no longer considers expanding the scope of TM claims to be a
>>>>> policy matter, but is now deemed to be an implementation issue
>>>>> instead? I think a number of us on the call would have
>>>>> objected at that time had we been told staff was going to deem
>>>>> this particular proposal as implementation (as opposed to
>>>>> policy) because the creation of this new policy out of whole
>>>>> cloth presents serious impacts to many stakeholders and
>>>>> requires a legitimate policy development process to sort
>>>>> through them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please clarify staff's apparent re-classification of
>>>>> this proposal as implementation since Monday's call, as that
>>>>> classification bears significant ramifications?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Fadi Chehade wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With regret, we are not ready to have a call tomorrow. Our
>>>>> contract negotiations are ongoing and we are likely to need
>>>>> another week to finalize with IBM. My sincere apologies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cassia- please setup our last informational call for this group
>>>>> at 8am on Tuesday December 11.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance to all of you and apologies for the delay.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Fadi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 29, 2012, at 2:03 PM, "Jeff Eckhaus"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree a call may be difficult , but hope that one of the
>>>>> agreed upon asks I had from the call could be followed up via
>>>>> email. I had asked and Fadi agreed to send the rationale and
>>>>> the supporting documentation that led to the ICANN decision
>>>>> that the mandatory Claims 2, is an implementation decision and
>>>>> not a policy decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Marilyn Cade <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: Bret Fausett <[log in to unmask]>, Fadi Chehade
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Antony Van Couvering
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Alan Greenberg
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Ben Anderson
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Bryce Coughlin
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Wright
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Elisa Cooper
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Fabricio Vayra
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Fred Felman
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Gerald Depardo
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "J. Scott Evans"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, James Bladel <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Jeffrey Eckhaus <[log in to unmask]>, Jeff Neuman
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "'Waldron, Joe'"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Jon Nevett <[log in to unmask]>, Jonathan
>>>>> Robinson <[log in to unmask]>, Kathy Kleinman
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Kathryn Park <[log in to unmask]>, Konstantine Komaitis
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Kristina Rosette <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Martin Sutton <[log in to unmask]>, Matt Serlin
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Mike O'Connor <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> Susan K <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Metalitz <[log in to unmask]>, Steve
>>>>> Delbianco <[log in to unmask]>, Tony Holmes
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Cc: Karen Lentz <[log in to unmask]>, Francisco Arias
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Akram Atallah
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Christine Willett
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, Margie Milam
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, John Jeffrey
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, David Olive <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: follow up/and scheduling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Status request:
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, as I am traveling to Dubai for ITU WCIT, my
>>>>> Friday is extremely limited in availability. I can only do a
>>>>> call from 1-3 p.m due to travel and previous commitments, but
>>>>>
>>>>> of more importance is that short notice prevents all of us to
>>>>> plan. But that is only an illustration of how hard it is to
>>>>> schedule on short notice. I suspect/expect others are more
>>>>> limited than I am!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A call next week will fall while I am in Dubai, and I see at
>>>>> least one other person from this group also there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we have a few days notice, and some time slots, so that all
>>>>> of us can plan accordingly to ensure that we can participate?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marilyn Cade
>>>>>
>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>>>>> CC: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask]
>>>>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:36:34 -0600
>>>>> Subject: Re: Monday Informational Call
>>>>>
>>>>> Just following up on this. If I recall correctly, we were
>>>>> looking at a follow-up call tomorrow (Friday, Nov. 30th)? Just
>>>>> want to make sure I didn't miss something. Please let me know
>>>>> if plans have changed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bret
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Bret Fausett, Esq.
>>>>> Internet Pro APC
>>>>> 4640 Admiralty Way, 5th Floor
>>>>> Marina del Rey, California 90292
>>>>> (310) 496-5755 (Office) | (310) 985-1351 (Mobile)
>>>>> [log in to unmask] | www.internet.pro
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP Key Published at https://keyserver.pgp.com
>>>>>
>>>>> S/MIME Encryption Upon Request
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
>>>>>
>>>>> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for
>>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use
>>>>> distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If
>>>>> you are not the intended recipient, please email sender and
>>>>> delete all copies of this message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To insure compliance with
>>>>> requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
>>>>> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
>>>>> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
>>>>> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue
>>>>> Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
>>>>> party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any
>>>>> attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside
>>>>> information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use
>>>>> of this communication by anyone other than the intended
>>>>> recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
>>>>> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
>>>>> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>>>
>>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>>>
>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>>>>
>>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>>>
>>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any
>>>>> attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside
>>>>> information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use
>>>>> of this communication by anyone other than the intended
>>>>> recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
>>>>> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
>>>>> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com,
>>>>> HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
|