"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:42:19 +0000

It’s actually even simpler than that:  the brand owner can simply direct its 
affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, and Z as a component of the licensing 
agreement.

J.

From: Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at 3:17
To: "Winterfeldt, Brian J." 
<brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Hi Brian,

I think you misunderstand. We do not assume a Single User-Single Registrant 
model in our statements. We are fuly aware that the Specification allows 
registrations also to affiliates and certain licensees. However, by crafting 
registration policies and accreditation rules carefully, dotBrand owners can 
differentiate. Just look at .WED for a registry almost no registrar is 
currently interested in carrying. Further, they can discriminate freely on the 
registrant level.

Therefore, on a purely outcome-oriented level, it is our opinion that 
everything that is intended to be achieved by this language can already be 
achieved under the current rules.

Finally, outcomes put aside, on a purely legalistic level, we are currently 
looking at contradicting languages. While Rec 19 recommends one thing, the 
proposed language sets out to create a loophole for just that thing Rec 19 
seeks to prevent. This is inconsistency per definition, no matter how 
well-intentioned and worthwhile the intent is. To go beyond the language of Rec 
19, additional policy work of some form is needed. As many constituencies have 
argued for a long time, the council does not have the role of deciding or 
setting aside policy on its own, it merely structures and channels the process.

Best regards,

Volker Greimann

Am 28.04.2014 23:53, schrieb Winterfeldt, Brian J.:
Dear James and Volker:

Please let me know if I understand correctly the RrSG position based your 
comments below:

·         The proposed amendment to Specification 13 is inconsistent with 
policy recommendation 19 because no discrimination between registrars should be 
permitted;

·         Dot Brands possess the sole ability to execute bulk transfers;

·         Dot Brands, as registrants, are able to choose their own preferred 
registrars; and

·         Dot Brands can implement registration policies and requirements to 
limit the services provided by registrars to only eligible registrants.

Forgive me if my encapsulation is wrong, but if I understand the RrSG position 
correctly, then I am concerned that it may gloss over some important nuances.

First, the RrSG position seems based on an assumption that dot Brand registries 
will be the sole registrant for bulk transfer and registrar selection purposes, 
whereas Specification Thirteen clearly permits Affiliates and Trademark 
Licensees to register names as well, thus complicating matters a bit.  Second, 
the RrSG position seems to encourage dot brand registries to discriminate among 
registrars using registration policies, or perhaps other restrictions or side 
agreements among Affiliates and Trademark Licensees, at their own peril.  
Absent any assurances from ICANN legal regarding the propriety of these 
indirect work-around suggestions, I imagine that dot Brands would be much more 
comfortable with the direct and formal provision in the Registry Agreement that 
is presently under consideration by the Council.  As I understand it, that is 
why the provision is necessary in the first place—so dot Brands cannot be 
alleged to violate the Registry Agreement in accrediting only one or two 
preferred corporate registrars.

I look forward to your responsive feedback.

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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 625-3562 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting f / (202) 339-8244
brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> / 
www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/>

Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

  *   To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett 
<bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  *   Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
  *   From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  *   Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000
  *   Accept-language: en-US
  *   In-reply-to: 
<535E1AA3.6090807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>>
  *   List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  *   Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  *   Thread-index: 
Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAJSGHAAAKWMf0oAGtHogAAH4hAAAAWYJ4AAWH6IgAAEVA2A
  *   Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

________________________________

Just to add to Volker¹s comments:

Registrars have had a vigorous discussion on this topic, and provided

feedback from diverse viewpoints.  But on the narrow question--whether

Spec 13 is compatible with Rec 19‹we generally believe it is not.

We recognize that dot-BRAND applicants and TLDs are a new part of the

domain name ecosystem, and will have unique interests not shared by other

TLDs.  For example, we whole-heartedly agree with the proposed

restrictions in Spec 13 on ICANN¹s ability to re-delegate a string that

was formerly part of a dot-BRAND.  However, we do not agree with the

assertion that these TLDs must be formally allowed to discriminate among

ICANN-accredited registrars.

In response to the concerns raised by proponents of Spec 13, about being

beholden to a single registrar/service provider, we would point out that,

as the Registry and Registrant, they would possess sole authority to

execute a bulk transfer to a new exclusive registrar/service provider

under existing ICANN policy.  Additionally, to address concerns about

³trusted² vs. ³untrusted² registrar/service providers, we would note that,

as the Registrant, they would be able to choose the services of any

registrar (or group of registrars) of their choosing, without the need to

include this language in the Registry Agreement.  In fact, this concern is

only legitimate in the scenario where the dot-BRAND TLD later extends

registrations to unaffiliated third parties.

In summary, Registrars do not believe that this component of Spec 13 is

compatible with Recommendation 19 of the original new gTLD policy, and

that while dot-Brand are likely to encounter concerns unique to their new

category of TLD, these issues can be addressed under existing policy.

Thanks‹

J.

From:  Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:  Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08

To:  Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List

<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:  Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Dear council-members,

after extensive discussion of the question put before us, the RrSG has

likewise found this excemption to be inconsistent with both the language

as well as with the spirit of the recommendation.

The question we have been asked is not whether we like the proposed

exemption or can live with it, but rather a very simple one: Is the

proposed incorporation of an ability to restrict nondiscriminatory

registrar access to dotBrand TLDs is not consistent with

 the intent and wording of Recommendation 19, or is it not. The

recommendation explicitly states that "Registries  (...) may not

discriminate among (ICANN) accredited registrars". In other words, the

language of the Recommendation 19 contradicts the proposed

 exemption.

Therefore, to find the additional language to be consistent with the

recommendation requires substantial arguments to that effect that would

allow such an interpretation. To find it consistent because one likes the

result or can live with the result does not

 fulfill this requirement. For such cases where implementation would

conflict with existing policy, further policy work adjusting or confirming

the Policy Recommendation is required. The GNSO Council should take the

lead in initiating this policy work.

Beyond the grammatical inconsistency of the Recommendation, the intent of

the Recommendation also indicates inconsistency.

As detailed in the final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top

Level Domains, the recommendation was supported by all GNSO Constituencies

and Mrs Doria. According to the recollections of members of the new gTLD

policy committee at the time the Recommendation

 was agreed upon, the concept of restricting registrar access was

discussed in the context of community TLDs, which are in many ways similar

to dotBrands. As registries have the ability under the Registry Agreement

to restrict registrar access to their TLDs

 by establishing reasonable, nondiscriminatory accreditation criteria, it

was ultimately agreed that discrimintation between registrars should not

be permitted.

In fact, the only public comment with regard to this recommendation came

from the RyC, which was concerned that small, specialized registries may

not be able to find a registrar to carry them. Note that this concern

deals with a completely different problem.

 This concern led to the Vertical Integration Working group and the

subsequent board decision allowing vertical integration. The idea of

allowing only a few registrars does not appear in the Final Report.

Finally, as registrants, dotBrands are perfectly free to discriminate

between registrars. The Recommendation only deals with registries. By

establishing certain registration requirements and policies, registries

can further eliminate the ability of registrars

 to provide registry services beyond the eligible circle of registrants.

Best regards,

Volker Greimann

Am 26.04.2014 16:54, schrieb Bret Fausett:

Feedback:

What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the

GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with

the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction

of New Generic Top-Level Domains.²

Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited

registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such

accredited registrars.²

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

 The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for

any exceptions for brands.

Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is

³inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation

19.²

Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for

.BRAND TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a

specialized type of TLD that was not being considered carefully when

Recommendation 19 was prepared. BUT, it is definitely

 inconsistent with the policy recommendation we made in August, 2007.

Let¹s think about what this means.

--

Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536

310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-496-5755 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-496-5755 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-985-1351 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-985-1351 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹

On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan,

I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information

to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the

deadline.

Thanks,

Thomas

Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Thanks Thomas,

You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59

 UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion

on Monday.

Let¹s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you

have and retain flexibility to modify

 (if necessary) as we receive further feedback.

Let¹s you and I talk on Monday.

Jonathan

From: Thomas

 Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38

To: GNSO Council List

Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

All,

this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The

motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only

received one response from the registrars so far.

Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC),

Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and

Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP

to cover their respective groups and since

 they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the

time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to

chime in and respond.

Thanks and kind regards,

Thomas

Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:

Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58

 MESZ

An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

All,

thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message.

I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared

in time.

Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the

list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups?

Certainly, one response per group is sufficient.

If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions,

please let me know.

The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers

will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the

NGPC for your review.

Thanks,

Thomas

Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

All,

Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it

seems to me that the way forward is to focus

 as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every

attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner.

This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to

be submitted to the Council by 28 April

 for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting.

We are being asked  (full letter attached for reference) to

1.       Š

 advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional

provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy

Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains;

or

2.       advise

 ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including

an explanation as to why additional time is required.

I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups

/ constituencies  is therefore:

Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of

GNSO Policy Recommendation 19?

It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as

possible along the following lines:

·         No.

 It is not inconsistent (Š with the letter and intent Š).

and

·         Possibly,

 an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent.

and

·         Are

 there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its

response to the NGPC?

OR

·         Yes.

 It is inconsistent ( Š with the letter and intent Š ).

and

·         Possibly,

 an explanation as to why it is inconsistent.

and

·         Is

 there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving

this issue and in what time frame?

Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the

above.  The timing is

 very tight.

We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e.

no, it is not inconsistent.

Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the

Council on or before 28 April) and an associated

 letter to the NGPC.

Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel

with the consultation work.

Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets

done?  Thomas?

I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of

providing a representative, timely and

 effective response.

I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the

discussion to date.  Please correct

 me if I have.

Jonathan

--

Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536

310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-496-5755 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-496-5755 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-985-1351 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-985-1351 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹

--

Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann

- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting 
901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> 
<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>

<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>

<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / 
www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin

Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen

Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder

Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese

Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per

E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact

us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann

- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting 
901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> 
<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>

<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>

<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / 
www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay

updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it

is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of

this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this

e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this

e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting

us by telephone.

________________________________

  *   References:
     *   Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 
question<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>
        *   From: Volker Greimann

________________________________
<<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16073.html> 
Chronological 
Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16074> 
>>> <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16072.html> 
Thread 
Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16074> 
>>><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html>
________________________________

Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

===========================================================
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).
===========================================================

--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / 
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
 / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht 
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder 
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / 
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
 / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

ATT00001.png