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]