From wendy  Sun Jul 15 21:27:56 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:27:56 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the
	premise
In-Reply-To: <4FF2A5B0.8000704@seltzer.org>
References: <4FF2A5B0.8000704@seltzer.org>
Message-ID: <50030BAC.5080600@seltzer.com>

I've written up my concerns with the "consumer metrics on trust" work.
If others agree, we may want to lodge a formal NCSG objection.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:05:19 -0400
From: local Wendy <wendy at seltzer.org>
To: Consumer CCI DT <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org>

Hi Consumer Metrics team,

I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.

The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
expression and innovation.

Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
activities.

ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.

In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
" Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
laws:" namely,
* Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
* Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
* Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
including reported data security breaches;
* Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
* Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
* Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
phishing sites in new gTLDs;
* Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
gTLDs;
* Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
new gTLDs
* Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
* Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD

Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
"duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
parties including existing registrants.


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/




From rafik.dammak  Mon Jul 16 02:16:57 2012
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:16:57 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the
	premise
In-Reply-To: <50030BAC.5080600@seltzer.com>
References: <4FF2A5B0.8000704@seltzer.org>
	<50030BAC.5080600@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmwQF_etYA=OjtcOq9A=g+zy2oxgTq=gMF6gaWzwBnD8g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wendy,

Yes definitely that is not trust metrics but more security-driven metrics
with additional trademark focus , insisting in the content and activity of
websites and nothing related to domain names themselves. ICANN has nothing
to do with content .
I support NCSG statement regarding that.

Best,

Rafik

Le lundi 16 juillet 2012, Wendy Seltzer a ?crit :

> I've written up my concerns with the "consumer metrics on trust" work.
> If others agree, we may want to lodge a formal NCSG objection.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:05:19 -0400
> From: local Wendy <wendy at seltzer.org <javascript:;>>
> To: Consumer CCI DT <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org <javascript:;>>
>
> Hi Consumer Metrics team,
>
> I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
> metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
> calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
> concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
> work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
> metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
> rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.
>
> The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
> value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
> leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
> because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
> chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
> their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
> expression and innovation.
>
> Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
> system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
> destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
> activities.
>
> ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
> interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.
>
> In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
> laws:" namely,
> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
> relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
> domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
> delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
> * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
> including reported data security breaches;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
> gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
> new gTLDs
> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
> * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
> invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD
>
> Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
> "duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
> for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
> parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
> parties including existing registrants.
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org <javascript:;> +1 617.863.0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org <javascript:;> +1 617.863.0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <javascript:;>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>


-- 
Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120716/6083c5ec/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Mon Jul 16 04:08:09 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:08:09 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the
	premise
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmwQF_etYA=OjtcOq9A=g+zy2oxgTq=gMF6gaWzwBnD8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4FF2A5B0.8000704@seltzer.org> <50030BAC.5080600@seltzer.com>
	<CAH5sThmwQF_etYA=OjtcOq9A=g+zy2oxgTq=gMF6gaWzwBnD8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1C83567A-EDB1-414B-AE82-7D2842F25546@uzh.ch>

Hi

I certainly agree with the spirit of Wendy's objection, particularly with respect to

> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
> laws:" namely,
> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims

Although it's somewhat easier to get behind at least the intentions of

> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
> gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
> new gTLDs
> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and

I guess my question is, at this point, what effect is it possible to have?  If the only viable option is to object on philosophical grounds to the whole enterprise and get our minority report on record, ok.  But might it be possible to propose some amendment/alternative that they'd seriously consider at this stage in order to be able to say the whole community agrees etc?  Or are Steve et al too locked in this far down the road?  I ask in total ignorance, not having had the bandwidth to follow this group.  A priori, one would think it desirable for NC to not be off the map of the defined "consumer" approach?

BTW is ALAC supporting the team's approach?  Uniformly, as a group, or are there any potential allies?  I've not noticed much report back on their lists from whomever is representing in the team...

Bill


On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Wendy,
> 
> Yes definitely that is not trust metrics but more security-driven metrics with additional trademark focus , insisting in the content and activity of websites and nothing related to domain names themselves. ICANN has nothing to do with content .
> I support NCSG statement regarding that.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> Le lundi 16 juillet 2012, Wendy Seltzer a ?crit :
> I've written up my concerns with the "consumer metrics on trust" work.
> If others agree, we may want to lodge a formal NCSG objection.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:05:19 -0400
> From: local Wendy <wendy at seltzer.org>
> To: Consumer CCI DT <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org>
> 
> Hi Consumer Metrics team,
> 
> I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
> metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
> calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
> concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
> work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
> metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
> rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.
> 
> The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
> value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
> leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
> because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
> chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
> their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
> expression and innovation.
> 
> Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
> system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
> destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
> activities.
> 
> ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
> interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.
> 
> In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
> laws:" namely,
> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
> relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
> domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
> delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
> * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
> including reported data security breaches;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
> gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
> new gTLDs
> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
> * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
> invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD
> 
> Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
> "duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
> for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
> parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
> parties including existing registrants.
> 
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rafik Dammak
> @rafik
> "fight for the users"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120716/77280744/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Jul 19 19:58:10 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:58:10 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the
	premise
In-Reply-To: <1C83567A-EDB1-414B-AE82-7D2842F25546@uzh.ch>
References: <4FF2A5B0.8000704@seltzer.org> <50030BAC.5080600@seltzer.com>
	<CAH5sThmwQF_etYA=OjtcOq9A=g+zy2oxgTq=gMF6gaWzwBnD8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1C83567A-EDB1-414B-AE82-7D2842F25546@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BF32ADB6-AA6D-41CF-976A-EA88B72E9447@ipjustice.org>

On today's NCSG Policy call, we discussed sending in this stmt as an NCSG stmt.  Wolfgang made some points on consumer rights needing consideration in this debate and said he will propose a few lines of text to add to the letter.  If there are other thoughts or suggestions for this letter, please speak up so they can be incorporated in the next couple of days and then we can send as a NCSG statement.

Thank you!
Robin

On Jul 15, 2012, at 6:08 PM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I certainly agree with the spirit of Wendy's objection, particularly with respect to
> 
>> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
>> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
>> laws:" namely,
>> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
>> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
> 
> Although it's somewhat easier to get behind at least the intentions of
> 
>> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
>> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
>> gTLDs;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
>> new gTLDs
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
>> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
> 
> I guess my question is, at this point, what effect is it possible to have?  If the only viable option is to object on philosophical grounds to the whole enterprise and get our minority report on record, ok.  But might it be possible to propose some amendment/alternative that they'd seriously consider at this stage in order to be able to say the whole community agrees etc?  Or are Steve et al too locked in this far down the road?  I ask in total ignorance, not having had the bandwidth to follow this group.  A priori, one would think it desirable for NC to not be off the map of the defined "consumer" approach?
> 
> BTW is ALAC supporting the team's approach?  Uniformly, as a group, or are there any potential allies?  I've not noticed much report back on their lists from whomever is representing in the team...
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
>> Hi Wendy,
>> 
>> Yes definitely that is not trust metrics but more security-driven metrics with additional trademark focus , insisting in the content and activity of websites and nothing related to domain names themselves. ICANN has nothing to do with content .
>> I support NCSG statement regarding that.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> Le lundi 16 juillet 2012, Wendy Seltzer a ?crit :
>> I've written up my concerns with the "consumer metrics on trust" work.
>> If others agree, we may want to lodge a formal NCSG objection.
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise
>> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:05:19 -0400
>> From: local Wendy <wendy at seltzer.org>
>> To: Consumer CCI DT <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org>
>> 
>> Hi Consumer Metrics team,
>> 
>> I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
>> metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
>> calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
>> concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
>> work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
>> metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
>> rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.
>> 
>> The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
>> value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
>> leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
>> because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
>> chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
>> their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
>> expression and innovation.
>> 
>> Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
>> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
>> system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
>> destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
>> activities.
>> 
>> ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
>> interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.
>> 
>> In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
>> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
>> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
>> laws:" namely,
>> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
>> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
>> relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
>> domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
>> delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
>> * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
>> including reported data security breaches;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
>> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
>> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
>> gTLDs;
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
>> new gTLDs
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
>> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
>> * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
>> invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD
>> 
>> Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
>> "duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
>> for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
>> parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
>> parties including existing registrants.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rafik Dammak
>> @rafik
>> "fight for the users"
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120719/2e8f8995/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Fri Jul 27 00:53:58 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:53:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer metrics statement
Message-ID: <501184360200005B000918BA@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Hi - from the few messages on the listserv I gather there is support for Wendy's statement either becoming a statement of or followed up by an endorsement from the NCSG.

Wendy, can you tell us what if anything we need to do to effectuate this, and who to send it to?
 
Thanks!
Mary
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120726/9546190b/attachment.html>