<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: FW: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations / Principles
- To: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: FW: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations / Principles
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:37:20 -0700
<div>Kristina,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
All of your questions below are related, as my principles about generic
lables and presumed motives are related. To try and clarify:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
Whatever you want to call the label APPLE (generic word, dicutionary
word, etc.), there are perfectly legitimate uses (hundreds no doubt, maybe
more) for that label as a domain name that do not infringe on any IP
rights (or Prior Rights if you want to use that term).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
The intent of my principles is that making the assumption that
registration of that label would be in bad faith, infringing, whatever, is not
appropriate. And yes, certain combinations of those types of labels could
result in an equally generic (or whatever you want to call it) label.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
All potential registrants should have an equal opportunity to register
and use those labels for lawful, non-infringing purposes. The fact that a
particular entity has voluntarily made the decision to TM or otherwise protect
a generic label for one or more classes of goods or services doesn't bestow
upon them ownership of the label for every other conceivalbe use.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
I concede that the focus of TM law is consumer protection. But TM
holders who choose to use labels from among the common words and
phrases in the public domain are only entitled to protection to the extent
that other uses of the mark do not create public or
consumer confusion. Again, it does not bestow upon them the right to
deprive everyone else of useful common words and phrases. I believe this
concept has been upheld in a number of court cases.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
The Legal Rights of others should be considered in that context. And
while I agree that the SOW includes TM holders and other IP holders in its
implied definition of Legal Rights, I don't see where it excludes everyone
else. I believe the choice of the term Legal Rights by the Council was
deliberate, and for that reason. Perhaps the Council can clarify their intent
with a definition.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim<BR></div>
<div name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: FW:
[gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations / Principles<BR>From: "Rosette,
Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, May 16, 2007 10:45 am<BR>To:
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>Tim,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>
I'm reviewing the email strings to identify "loose ends" before our call
today. I don't believe you posted a response to my forwarded questions
below. If that's correct, would you please provide some context or
circumstances in which you believe the second recommendation ("gTLD operators
should not presume motives of potential registrants.") should be
applicable or that you intended it to address? <FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>I<SPAN class=624110319-11052007>
have a fairly good idea, but I think it would be helpful to others (and
to me if my assumption is wrong)</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
? If you did post a response, would you please re-send
as it doesn't seem to have made its way to me? </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>
Also, I have additional questions/requests for clarification
regarding your principles 1 and 3.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>
1. "legal rights". You're correct that the SoW does not define
"legal rights." However, the introductory paragraph and the
"first task" of the Statement of Work, read together, make it clear that, at a
minimum, "legal rights" encompasses intellectual property and trademark
rights. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=078273114-16052007><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial>
In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required to
<BR>implement measures that </FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#ff0000>discourage registration of domain names that <BR>
infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to prevent
<BR>
inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply
<BR>
with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and
<BR>
provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during
<BR>the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners.</FONT> There
have <BR>
been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to
<BR>registrants and third parties affected by registration, and effectiveness;
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=078273114-16052007>
<div><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>(1) </FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#ff0000>
Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD
<BR>
operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and
<BR>
existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the legal rights
<BR>of others</FONT> during the domain name registration process, particularly
<BR>
during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for
<BR>
what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation should
<BR>
identify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The
<BR>
working group should establish definitions of terms used in this
<BR>
document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of the working
<BR>
group. These definitions would only be in the context of the document,
<BR>
and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal
contexts. </FONT></FONT></div></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>
Based on the TLD summaries, the additional "rights" protected by the
gTLDs appear to include business names, names of public bodies, personal names,
and unregistered trademarks. There is no consistent combination of
these rights; the only common thread are rights arising from trademark
registrations. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=+0><SPAN class=078273114-16052007>
It seems to me that we have two options: (1) We can use
"legal rights" and definite it to be very specific as to what "rights" we
intend that term to encompass in the context of our report. Even if we do
that, though, we will still have a problem of "meaning creep." People
reading the report won't necessarily be referring back and forth to the
definitions and will likely bring their own interpretation of legal rights to
bear. (For example, do any of us intend to include in "legal rights" any
of the rights delineated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I
doubt it, but there's invariably a fair number of people out there who will
read it that way.) The magnitude of the problem increases if
portions of our report end up floating around and readers are not even aware
that the report includes definitions. </SPAN></FONT>(<SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>
2) We can use a different term (currently Prior Rights) and be
very specific as to what it means. As a general matter, the term does not
automatically mean solely IP or IP-related rights; simply, rights that were in
existence before a particular event (here, the gTLD
application/agreement/launch, etc.) If there are other types of rights
you would like to see listed as being included, please do post them.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>
Your point raises another question that I will post separately to the
list -- whether Prior Rights is the ideal term or
not.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007><FONT face=Arial>
3. I acknowledge the concern implicit in your genericness
proposal. I do not, however, support the proposal. In trademark
law, a term is generic only in the context of the goods or services to which it
refers. A classic example is apple. APPLE is generic for apples,
but is "arbitrary" for computers and personal electronics equipment.
(Apologies if you know this; others may not.) It is my opinion that
a domain name cannot have that "goods/services" context required for a
genericness determination until it is used and then only in examination of
associated content. Consequently, "generic terms" is not
really a possibility and may not be the correct wording. "Dictionary
words" does not have that flaw. However, it may be appropriate to
consider that (a) many proper nouns are used and registered as trademarks; and
(b) many trademarks that would be considered "fanciful" and entitled to the
strongest scope of protection - and that no one would characterize as gene!
ric - have found their way into the dictionary. See </FONT><A
href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/google"; target=_blank><FONT
face=Arial>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/google</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>
(Merriam Webster Online Dictionary definition of GOOGLE).
The other problem with dictionary words is where do you draw the line - do
misspellings count? what about combinations of dictionary
words (GO DADDY, for example)? If they don't count, why
not?</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007>Kristina</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=078273114-16052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Rosette, Kristina<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 11, 2007 3:14
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Cc:</B>
gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested
Recommendations / Principles<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=624110319-11052007></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>T<SPAN
class=624110319-11052007>im,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007>
Thank you for posting these recommendations. They'll be helpful
for our discussions on Monday.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007>I do have two follow-up
questions:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007>
1. Would you please clarify whose recommendations these are?
Are they yours in your individual capacity? In your capacity as Vice
Chair of the Registrar Constituency? The informal views of the Registrar
Constituency? The contextual information would be helpful to
have.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=+0><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=624110319-11052007><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>2. Would you mind elaborating
on the context or circumstances in which you believe the second recommendation
("gTLD operators should not presume motives of potential registrants.")
should be applicable or that you intended it to
address? </FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>I<SPAN class=624110319-11052007>
have a fairly good idea, but I think it would be helpful to others (and
to me if my assumption is wrong).</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007>Many thanks.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007>Kristina </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=624110319-11052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:54
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Griffin,Lance<BR><B>Cc:</B>
gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested
Recommendations / Principles<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>See the attached.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
1. I changed it to legal rights, the same term used in the SOW. And show
me where in the SOW certain legal rights are exempted from consideration? Also,
this WG, to my understanding, is not engaged in consideration of top level
labels.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
2. I attempted to define what I meant by Generic in the attached
revision. There may be no *legal* or *policy* definition of Generic right now
but there should be. A better definition could be crafted if the Council
decides to actually initiate a PDP on this subject.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
3. Cute. The typo has been fixed, again using the terminology of the
SOW.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
4. There are no ICANN documents for a lot of things that happen on a
pretty regular basis, no should there be any attempt to have one for
everything. Clearly, there are costs associated with implementing and
supporting any of the mechanisms being comtemplated. As any other business,
registries should be expected to recoup that cost and make a profit. While I am
sure Disney doesn't want to dip into its billions to pay for the privilege that
such mechanisms affords them, what justification is there for not doing
so?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Tim <BR></DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations / Principles<BR>From: "Griffin, Lance"
<Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Thu, May 10, 2007 11:41 am<BR>To:
"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Tim:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
I think you need to provide some definitions before your suggestion can
be considered. Also, I had understood that the Registries/Registrars were
only seeking guidelines, and not using the words "best practices."
However, most of your suggestions seem to go way beyond a guideline.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
1. What do you mean by "prior rights" in the following phrase?
Where in the SOW does it say this WG should consider any prior rights an
applicant may have? Who would determine what prior rights an applicant
has? Does an applicant who has no travel business have a prior right to
use .travel? Has ICANN issued a statement on the prior rights of
applicants?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA">All potential registrants have prior rights. </SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>2. What do you mean by <FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>"</FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New
Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA">
generic labels"? Who would determine what is generic and what is
not. On what basis. Has ICANN issued a statement on "generic
labels"? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman';
mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman';
mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">3. In the title of
your suggestion, what is a PRIO right? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman';
mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman';
mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>
4. What is the basis for requesting costs plus reasonable fees in
a "prior rights mechanism"? Is there an ICANN document which provides
for these reasonable fees? If everyone has prior rights, isn't this
fee just a cost of doing business?</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman';
mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=341001216-10052007><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman';
mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;
mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>These are just a few initial
thoughts. </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:20
AM<BR><B>To:</B> gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> [gnso-pro-wg]
Suggested Recommendations / Principles<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Attached.<BR><BR>Tim
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|