Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Griffin Barnett
20:27
Pretty poor audio from Brian B
julie.hedlund
21:26
@Griffin: We’ll let him know.
Ariel Liang
22:16
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190918/e9fbcd9d/KleimanMuscovitchProposal09042019-0001.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
22:45
hello all
Michael Karanicolas
23:37
I oppose Brian’s “compromise”, seeing as it basically amounts to us all just adopting the IPC position.
Griffin Barnett
24:11
Can Brian's line be muted with Jason is talking - lots of background noise
David McAuley (Verisign)
24:59
sorry to be a bit late
Philip Corwin
25:20
It would be useful to describe similarities and difference between the two proposals.
Griffin Barnett
28:55
Under its own authority might be going too far - you could also say they are interpreting a pretty vague policy/implementation instruction on this issue
Griffin Barnett
29:12
In a reasonable way that serves the purpose of TMCH/Claims/Sunrise
Kathy Kleiman
29:54
please go to bottom of doc
Kathy Kleiman
33:36
QUESTION: what is Brian reading from?
Greg Shatan
34:28
WIPO UDRP Overview, I believe, @Kathy.
John McElwaine
34:48
@Brian - agree WIPO 3.0 at Section 1.10 states is that the consensus is that design marks can be the basis of a UDRP. https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item110
julie.hedlund
34:59
We see your hand up @Greg
Griffin Barnett
35:30
If a UDRP panel can assess that there are protected textual elements of a composite mark, is it not something the TMCH could do (as it has been)?
Griffin Barnett
35:57
I don't see that as being an unreasonable practice
Kathy Kleiman
36:13
I think Brian asked the Proposers a question...
Mary Wong
36:34
Our (ICANN Org) understanding is that, for the UDRP, it’s very much a case by case analysis. So, not excluded in principle, but fact-dependent.
John McElwaine
37:48
I will remind folks that there is no reliable way to tell whether a mark is a standard character or not without self-certification from the TMCH applicant.
Philip Corwin
37:55
Have we lost Brian?
julie.hedlund
38:08
Rebecca and then Kathy
julie.hedlund
38:11
Sorry, I was on mute.
Terri Agnew
38:16
Brian is back
Terri Agnew
39:40
Reminder to mute when not speaking
julie.hedlund
40:04
Mary next and then Jason
Griffin Barnett
40:12
That's one case with particular set of facts
John McElwaine
43:29
If there is no way to tell whether a registration is a "word mark" how does Deloitte implement this proposal?
John McElwaine
44:29
I have to drop for a call. be back soon.
Griffin Barnett
45:23
Agree with Mary - we need rules for the TMCH that is effectively lowest-common-denominator for text marks
Griffin Barnett
45:36
Becuase of all the varying definitions and jurisdictional prctices
Mary Wong
46:02
To John M’s question - Deloitte’s implementation can be found in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the TMCH Guidelines.
Kathy Kleiman
46:21
Close the Gap -- a worthy goal!
Mary Wong
47:38
From the TMCH Guidelines: “For those marks that to do not exclusively consist of letters, words, numerals or special characters, the verification agents will verify the trademark name based upon the image on the trademark certificate. In the event that there is any doubt about the order in which the characters appear, the description provided by the Trademark Office will prevail. In the event no description is provided, such trademark records will be allocated to a Deloitte internal team of specialists with thorough knowledge of both national and regional trademark law who will conduct independent research on how the trademark is used, e.g. check website, or they may request that the trademark holder or agent provide additional documentary evidence on how the trademark is used.”
Griffin Barnett
49:56
There are basic disagreements about how trademark law protects textual elements of marks that also have stylization/design elements
Michael Karanicolas
50:27
Emoji domains. What a time to be alive.
Maxim Alzoba
50:45
current thinking is that emojis is DNS is a bad idea (from security perspective)
Griffin Barnett
50:45
I think that has been the issue in moving toward further compromise, although I note that the IPC did provide responses to the iteration of the Muscovitch propopsal that was subsequently withdrawn
Maxim Alzoba
50:55
in DNS
Mary Wong
51:16
@Griffin, that’s it exactly, hence the need for this WG to decide what it means by “word marks” and how that can be implemented within the framework of the TMCH as a repository and that accepts all verified marks from all jurisdictions.
Maxim Alzoba
51:31
but ccTLDs can do what they find fit
Mary Wong
52:05
@Rebecca, I think you are misinterpreting what I meant.
Susan Payne
52:57
@Rebecca, I think the matching of the mark to string is entirely technical, not something that Deloitte evaluate
Rebecca Tushnet
53:30
According to Deloitte's answers to our questions, they do look to see if there's anything they can extract.
Rebecca Tushnet
54:01
It's not purely technical because the mark transmitted to them can be a visual symbol, under their standards, and they look to see if they can get text out
Mary Wong
54:54
If I was not clear, the staff intention was to remind everyone of what the TMCH is supposed to be - a repository that does not engage in substantive examination of what is/is not a TM; and a repository that is capable of accepting verified marks from all jurisdictions.
Susan Payne
55:48
@Rebecca - apologies then I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the matching between the TM and the domain string.
Rebecca Tushnet
57:43
But Greg, how do you know the words alone have "TM value," in your terms? You are just guessing, in the abstract, if there's only a registration for the matter as a whole.
Mary Wong
57:49
We also reminded the WG that there is no universally-accepted, single definition of what is a “word mark”. Even if multiple jurisdictions end up in the same place about specific words as TMs, the specific tests, definitions and approach may well be different. That is what I meant.
Susan Payne
58:27
Although Deloitte do make this assessment based on what is in the certificate.
Rebecca Tushnet
58:29
And Mary, that's one of the things I disagree with. You have not identified any area in which those differently worded definitions disagree on the result.
Greg Shatan
58:59
@Rebecca, how can you say they do not? You would just be guessing as well.
Rebecca Tushnet
59:22
Right, so to assume that the right exists is to expand the right, contrary to what ICANN wanted to do.
Griffin Barnett
59:29
I thought we had previously identified that under some definitions of "word mark" this would include marks that contain words and also design elements?
Greg Shatan
59:48
Assuming it doesn’t takes away rights,which ditto.
Rebecca Tushnet
59:48
Deference to national standards on what's a word mark is fine with me.
Griffin Barnett
59:54
Hence the ambiguity of using "word mark" as the standard
Jay Chapman
01:00:04
yes Brian - submit both for public comment
Rebecca Tushnet
01:00:15
We *can't* take away rights.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:00:46
It's literally not possible.
Ariel Liang
01:01:01
Updated open TMCH questions doc that contains the new proposals from Kathy and Claudio for Q8: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18jtYYKQfZd1vVM7ePS6PlxVDqgBZEsrY/edit
Greg Shatan
01:01:03
What’s a right without a remedy?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:01:19
But if it is uncertain whether there is a right, then we shouldn't be (at the least) granting preemptive Sunrise rights.
Mary Wong
01:01:33
@Griffin, @Rebecca, all - we don’t know the text of all the TM laws worldwide, but it is fair to say that jurisdictions throughout the world recognize that there is a difference between protecting the letters and/or characters that comprise a mark, and protecting the manner in which the mark is viewed. Those jurisdictions also recognize that there may also be protected afforded to a design component, irrespective of the precise verbiage used to describe these different categories.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:01:34
I am open to sending Notices if there is a properly worded notice about the potential limits of the claim
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:07
Where is Claudio's new language?
Philip Corwin
01:02:27
Claudio's proposal---
julie.hedlund
01:02:34
He sent it just moments ago.
julie.hedlund
01:02:39
We are trying to bring up the message.
Ariel Liang
01:02:41
We are trying to find it and display it
julie.hedlund
01:02:42
It’s up now.
julie.hedlund
01:03:01
Actually, that may not be it.
Philip Corwin
01:03:02
1) Going forward, GI may be accepted in the Clearinghouse (and recorded separately as such within the database to distinguish them from TM records) under "3.2.4 - other marks that constitute intellectual property" OR shall be permitted to be recorded in one ancillary GI database, e.g. "the unitary, ancillary GI Database", that all registries/registrars may voluntarily connect with;2) GIs shall NOT be protected during the Sunrise or TM Claims period, unless they are also registered as trademarks and otherwise meet the qualifying criteria for such trademarks;3) the protection of GIs (those that are not also registered as trademarks) shall NOT be considered a mandatory RPMfor any new gTLD registry;4) for new gTLD registries that desire or choose to protect GIs (as permitted by the current rules) based on local laws and/or for other consumer protection reasons, GIs may be protected and registered as domain names during the Limited Registration Period, and/or by the issuance of a GI Claims Notice, and w
Philip Corwin
01:03:23
and which shall be supported by the unitary, ancillary GI database.
Ariel Liang
01:03:29
Just noticed Claudio sent to a Sub Team email address
julie.hedlund
01:03:39
The proposal was not sent to the full WG list.
julie.hedlund
01:03:43
We are trying to retrieve it.
Ariel Liang
01:03:54
Here it is: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-September/000397.html
julie.hedlund
01:03:55
It is difficult to do this at the last minute.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:59
Claudio seemed to have cut out?
Susan Payne
01:04:02
did we lose Claudio?
Griffin Barnett
01:04:03
Not hearing him
julie.hedlund
01:04:07
We have lost Claudio.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:07
crickets
JBB
01:04:08
I lost Claudio
Philip Corwin
01:04:10
Just lost audio
julie.hedlund
01:04:54
The proposal Claudio sent is up on the screen.
Paul Tattersfield
01:05:13
can be entered under 3.2.4
Terri Agnew
01:05:59
Attempting to dial out to Claudio, it is ringing with no answer. Will continue trying.
Terri Agnew
01:07:05
Claudio has rejoined
Paul Tattersfield
01:07:22
3.2.4. is other marks and is a catch all we don't need a definition
Philip Corwin
01:10:19
I had hopes that there was some standard accepted definition of GI we could reference -- not that we should create our own
Griffin Barnett
01:10:33
There may be - perhaps in TRIPS?
Mary Wong
01:10:46
The closest internationally-accepted definition of GI may be that of the WTO: ““Indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a [WTO] Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:58
Brian - is this a good time to share the other pending language?
Mary Wong
01:11:14
@Griffin, yes - what I quoted is from Article 22, TRIPs.
Griffin Barnett
01:11:51
Yep - you got it
Rebecca Tushnet
01:13:41
What is the barrier to Deloitte offering its ancillary database to every registry right now?
Brian Beckham
01:13:47
@Ariel, could we perhaps get Kathy's email to the WG from 4:52 pm my time on Tuesday the 17th onscreen?
Philip Corwin
01:14:08
If these are not marks that get access to Sunrise and Claims, then what criteria would Deloitte utilize to determine if they should be accepted for limited registration purposes?
Ariel Liang
01:14:09
sure
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:17
Unless I'm mistaken, no ICANN rule or part of the contract prohibits that--so why would we need to intervene and wouldn't we need to change the contract to *mandate* it be done?
Griffin Barnett
01:14:42
so basically Claudio is saying: have a single centralized database specifically for GIs, but separate from the TMCH, where GIs accepted into that separate centralied anciallary database could be integrated voluntarily by registries who wish to provide a special registration period specifically for GIs
Griffin Barnett
01:14:57
Which would be subsidiary to Sunrise
Ariel Liang
01:15:20
Kathy’s email is on screen, but pease note that 3.2.4 is struck in her email (format lost in the mailing list archive)
Ariel Liang
01:15:25
*please
Rebecca Tushnet
01:15:42
Either there's a market for it and Deloitte can develop it (and others can compete with Deloitte to provide it) or there's not and we would have to mandate it.
Griffin Barnett
01:16:09
So in terms of a policy fix to achieve that, it seems it would require a clarification to the interpretation of TMCH guidelines about accepting marks protected by statute or treaty to exclude GIs, but state that GIs could be submitted and accepted into the separate centralized ancillary database
Paul Tattersfield
01:16:12
Not seeing the strike out is very misleading
Mary Wong
01:16:41
FYI, ancillary services offered by Deloitte have to be approved by ICANN Org. Currently, these are the extended claims service and the T-Rex service. I believe these services are available to TMCH-verified marks that are contained in an ancillary database.
Paul Tattersfield
01:17:04
89 class marks are not trademarks this iw wrong
Greg Shatan
01:17:42
89 class registrations are not marks at all.
Greg Shatan
01:18:12
They are there to let TM examiners know that they can’t issue marks that use national emblems, etc., etc.
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:54
but they need to be in the TMCH
Rebecca Tushnet
01:19:14
No they don't (although some may qualify because of statute or treaty, like the Olympic marks)
Paul Tattersfield
01:19:37
so you wouldn't allow UNHCR into the TMCH?
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:43
good point - tx Greg!
Rebecca Tushnet
01:19:51
If we're speaking of US class 89: nonregistration data entered into b/c of statute, treaty, or other obligations
Mary Wong
01:20:19
QUESTION: Who will determine whether the word is protected by a ;articular treaty “as a trademark”?
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:26
Greg +1
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:43
@Mary, Deloitte is currently doing this.
Mary Wong
01:20:51
(thinking of Red Cross, for instance - it’s protected by the Conventions but none of them say it’s a trademark specifically)
Marie Pattullo
01:21:32
Feta is Greek. Protected as such ;-).
Mary Wong
01:21:38
@Kathy, actually, the problem seems to be that Deloitte simply looks at the statute/treaty - doesn’t take the additional step of analyzing whether that statute/treaty considers the entry a “trademark”
Paul Tattersfield
01:22:06
3.2.4 meets that private need & GI's fit perfectly
Rebecca Tushnet
01:23:21
The statute protecting the Olympic marks specifies that they're protected as trademarks
Paul Tattersfield
01:23:36
Exactly all classes
Greg Shatan
01:23:42
@Marie, come to my local cheesemonger and tell them that they can only call the Greek feta feta.
Greg Shatan
01:24:10
Agree with Susan. The only change I can believe in is the “specified in”.
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:26
I think those are protected by ICANNs obligatory reserved lists
Rebecca Tushnet
01:24:29
@Susan, so are you ok with GIs coming in under "statute/treaty"? If not, what do you want to do about them?
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:32
red cross
Mary Wong
01:24:35
@Rebecca, I’m not sure that’s exactly what the Nairobi Treaty says.
Griffin Barnett
01:24:43
I agree with Susan... 3.2.3 already states "word marks" seems redundant/duplicative and potentially confusing to then add "as trademarks" and then add the further proposed definition of this
Paul Tattersfield
01:24:50
I agree with Susan too
Rebecca Tushnet
01:24:56
It doesn't have to be what the treaty says; it's eligible because of the statute.
Mary Wong
01:25:40
@Rebecca, that was why I asked the question, who will make that conclusion?
Susan Payne
01:26:12
@Rebecca, my point was that the amendment causes uncertainty for the treaty/statute marks that we all agree this provision is intended to cover
Mary Wong
01:26:23
(For clarity, staff is NOT voicing an opinion as to what the WG should conclude, we are merely trying to ask clarifying questions and provide reminders of the basic framework of the TMCH)
Griffin Barnett
01:26:26
If I recall, the red cross and olympic issue may be moot because aren't certain red cross and olympic names already reserved from registration generally across all new gTLDs except by the respective organization?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:26:27
We have a couple of possibilities on the table: (1) right now Deloitte takes everything, including GIs. (2) We can specify what trademarks are. (3) We can tell Deloitte to figure it out, which probably gets us back to (1).
Susan Payne
01:26:30
we don't all agree on GIs
Greg Shatan
01:27:11
To be clear, I am happy to have a group set up to take on the task of considering whether and how GIs are protected in gTLDs. But that’s a significant task.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:27:50
Claudio, you seem to be proposing a technical solution that I don't think we know enough about to mandate.
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:58
@Griffin https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml
Greg Shatan
01:28:00
We would be creating a GICH by whatever name.
Griffin Barnett
01:28:31
Maybe 3.2.3 should be revised to: Any designations specified in and protected by statute or treaty in effect at the time the designation is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion, where such designation is also the subject of a trademark registration. For any such designations not the subject of a trademark registration, such designations could be recorded in a separate centralized anciallary database specifically for such designations.
Paul Tattersfield
01:28:36
It seems sinple just let Deloitte know GIs belong in 3.2.4 not 3.2.3
Greg Shatan
01:28:36
There was never an intent to include GIs in any of this.
John McElwaine
01:28:49
I'm back. Sorry. Client call.
Greg Shatan
01:28:54
GIs are not marks, and therefore cannot come in under 3.2.4.
Paul Tattersfield
01:29:08
GIs are marks
Paul Tattersfield
01:29:18
they may not be trademarks
Griffin Barnett
01:29:21
GIs are not marks, they are GIs
Griffin Barnett
01:29:26
they are designations
Greg Shatan
01:29:27
GIs are only marks when recognized as such.
Griffin Barnett
01:29:29
but not marks
Rebecca Tushnet
01:29:33
@Paul I'm happy to start in that direction but right now Deloitte also offers Claims/Notice for 3.2.4 and does not put other IP into an ancillary database, according to its own representations
Rebecca Tushnet
01:29:47
So I'm happy to endorse your solution if that's a good wording but it won't solve the actual GI problem.
Griffin Barnett
01:29:50
I also think 3.2.4 is so vague as to require being deleted entirely
Mary Wong
01:29:58
For Q8: is there any coalescence over its scope being limited to marks (not otherwise eligible under 3.2.1) that are nevertheless protected under a statute or treaty as a sign that functions as a trademark/source identifier?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:30:06
Greg, would geo-leaning indicators need a glich? sorry, could not resist
John McElwaine
01:30:11
There is no need to allow the debate of GI's throw out the fix that we have all been talking about
Greg Shatan
01:30:12
Marks are trademarks, service marks, collective marks and certification marks.
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:14
If they are offring 3.2.4 claims / sunrise then they are clearly in breach
Rebecca Tushnet
01:30:22
Well, they tell people they are.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:30:42
We have no other information besides what they tell us/the public.
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:56
I was reading the 04/17 notes there were a lot of emails :)
Mary Wong
01:30:59
3.2.4 is strictly applicable to those marks for which ROs have requirements and requested service from Deloitte. As staff mentioned last week, the language of this section may need to be tightened to reflect this.
John McElwaine
01:31:15
@Mary +1
Greg Shatan
01:33:14
I’d like to propose a recommendation that the WG recommends that a Working Group be initiated to examine the issue of potential protections for GIs in gTLDs.
Greg Shatan
01:33:34
Claudio’s proposal codifies what is, at best, an existing mistake.
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:37
I wish the screen showed the formatting -- sorry all!
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:45
3.2.4 is crossed out.
Philip Corwin
01:34:46
Given the rather broad agreement that Deloitte's current practice goes beyond AGB rules, can we get agreement on a proposal to put out for comment?
Philip Corwin
01:35:19
We can adjust it down the road based upon public comment
Mary Wong
01:35:53
@Phil, staff tried to summarize in a comment upthread - is there any coalescence over its scope being limited to marks (not otherwise eligible under 3.2.1) that are nevertheless protected under a statute or treaty as a sign that functions as a trademark/source identifier?
Philip Corwin
01:35:57
@Greg--that's fine -- but what do we do about Deloitte's current practice?
Mary Wong
01:36:14
(though that doesn’t answer the question of who/how to determine whether a particular entry functions as a TM)
Mary Wong
01:38:17
Maybe another way to phrase the staff question: Does the WG believe there are any other marks/signs/emblems that function as TMs, and hence should be included, but that are NOT covered by 3.2.1 or 3.2.2?
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:19
Could you read it out Griffin?
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:21
bue all, have to drop early
Greg Shatan
01:39:27
What is allowed is registry-driven. If registries want to band together and have a GI CH, or a book title CH, or a surname CH, or a (gulp) culturally significant terms CH
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:27
bye
Greg Shatan
01:39:54
they are free to do so — singly or together. But it’s not our job to create these tools, without any policy reason to do so.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:40:03
Then we're back to including GIs unless we further clarify "identifier" as meaning "identifying a specific source rather than a set of sources or region of origin." I'm not absolutely opposed but "identifier" will get GIs right back in standing alone.
Mary Wong
01:40:09
Yes, that’s what 3.2.4 is for, Griffin.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:06
@Rebecca - including GIs but only in a separate anciallary database and only to allow registries to voluntarily extend any RPMs or special registration periods to them, not subjecting them to the mandatory TM Claims and Sunrise
Greg Shatan
01:41:21
Agree that “identifier” is a slippery term unless clarified as Rebecca suggests.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:31
(except where a GI is also protected through a TM registration, which gets it into the TMCH under 2.1)
Paul Tattersfield
01:41:51
I don't agree
julie.hedlund
01:42:07
All: staff prepared a glossary of many of these terms way back in 2017. We can recirculate it if this helps.
Griffin Barnett
01:42:11
And my comment was just about replacing the term "mark" in that section, not necessarily to propoe a specific alternative
Griffin Barnett
01:42:21
Was just throwing out a couple suggestions off the top of my head
Greg Shatan
01:42:21
I don’t think there is general agreement on 3.2.4. Period. I assume Kathy is saying that with her chair hat off.
Greg Shatan
01:42:55
@Kathy, you may wear a Princeton beanie instead.
Susan Payne
01:43:10
@Julie - I'd find your glossary useful thanks
Griffin Barnett
01:43:21
Maybe it makes more sense in 3.2.3 to say "Any designations ... statue or treaty as trademarks...."
Griffin Barnett
01:43:28
See my proposed revision to 3.2.3 above in chat
Paul Tattersfield
01:43:29
The current RPMS only reference 3.2.1 - 3.2.3
Greg Shatan
01:43:37
Sorry! An American beanie then. Or a “Make American Great Again” hat....
Paul Tattersfield
01:43:48
just GIs shouldn't be in 3.2.3
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:51
@Griffin - can you repost?
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:02
I can't seem to find it...
Griffin Barnett
01:44:37
Maybe 3.2.3 should be revised to: Any designations specified in and protected by statute or treaty in effect at the time the designation is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion, where such designation is also the subject of a trademark registration. For any such designations not the subject of a trademark registration, such designations could be recor
John McElwaine
01:44:39
Just as an example, 36 USC 30905 provides: The corporation [the Boy Scouts] has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts.
Griffin Barnett
01:44:52
Seems my paste was cut off.
Griffin Barnett
01:45:03
Perhaps staff can paste, or you can review the chat transcript after the call, thanks
Griffin Barnett
01:45:10
(@Kathy)
Mary Wong
01:45:25
Aren’t we really talking about source identifiers, but not merely those source identifiers where the essential feature/characteristics are determined by its geographical origin alone?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:45:28
Thanks Brian, staff, and all
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:31
@Griffin -- For any such designations not the subject of a trademark registration, such designations could be recor...?
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:39
Alas, cut off :-(
Griffin Barnett
01:45:58
Yeah, not sure why that is...I'd invie you to review the chat transcript after the call to look at the full comment
Griffin Barnett
01:46:02
(invite
julie.hedlund
01:46:27
Nothing from staff
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:33
Tx Brian!
Philip Corwin
01:46:42
Good call/bye all
Marie Pattullo
01:46:51
Thanks, all.
julie.hedlund
01:46:53
Thanks everyone!