Dear Brett:

 

Thank you for the suggestion.  However, contrary to the insinuation, my comment is not advanced on behalf of any one client or in respect to any one case.

 

Based on public comments and statements made here in Singapore, I was under the impression that a considerable portion of the community saw the proposed review mechanism as problematic for a variety of reasons including its scope and, conversely, its very existence.

 

Perhaps you would like to lead any discussion with the Board on this issue instead, given the Uniregistry public comment on this issue, portions of which I am personally inclined to agree with.

 

The proposal to further  reconsider these decisions on what appears to be an arbitrary selection basis for such reconsideration is an invitation for all parties dissatisfied with outcomes to lobby for ad-hoc changes to the new TLD process.

 

* * * *

 

We believe the more efficient view, however, is to allow the opinions to stand, as they are, and resolve the contentions as described above, which does not require any extraordinary intervention by ICANN.

 

Ultimately, to the extent that the Council addresses “the success (or not) of the new gTLD program” per the proposed agenda, I thought the pending SCO review proposal should at least receive mention for consideration.

 

Thank you,

 

Brian

 

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Head of Internet Practice
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244
brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com / www.kattenlaw.com

 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:30 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting with ICANN Board

 

On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> wrote:

§  An ad hoc, unbalanced and unduly narrow proposed SCO review mechanism.

 

Brian, if you speak on this, can you please identify yourself as counsel for Google in the CAR/CARS and other plurals disputes? 

 

At Uniregistry, we obviously have a different view on this. Having prevailed in all of our disputes, we do not believe it is appropriate, or contractually permissible, to ask us to reargue them. If we have one side of this issue articulated to the Board, you’ll need to put me in the queue to provide the counter view. 

 

         Bret

 

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com
— — — — — 

 

===========================================================
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
===========================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or 
distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify
the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original 
message without making any copies.
===========================================================
NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has
elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
===========================================================