All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments. Kind regards, Thomas
The motion has been posted on page https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+July+2014 Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: lundi 14 juillet 2014 20:53 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] IGO/RC motion All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments. Kind regards, Thomas
Hi, I am wondering does this motion meet the conditions set down in the by-laws as explained in the briefing note? Does this vote indicate approval of these amendments as required? thanks avri On 14-Jul-14 14:53, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
Hello Avri and everyone, As far as we can tell, procedurally, the language in the draft motion tracks/mirrors the process requirements of Section 16 of the PDP Manual, in that the motion calls for the original PDP Working Group to reconvene to confer on the GNSO Council¹s proposal to modify the policy recommendations while also providing for a public comment period for the same proposed modification. As to the implication of the Council vote, note that the Council needs first to agree on the final modification itself, as it is for the Council to determine the substance of this before sending anything on either to the WG or out for public comment (assuming, that is, that the Council is minded to make a modification in the first place). As Alan noted in his email from yesterday, issues that the Council may need to finalize in this regard could include, for instance, the nature of protection for the various Red Cross names and the form/type of claims notice required for permanent TMCH claims. As such, provided the Council agrees with the Section 16 process as laid out in the Briefing Note and the motion, the Council may wish to focus its current discussion on the language, wording and nature of the substantive proposal itself. I hope this clarifies! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 at 7:01 PM To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, "<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
Hi,
I am wondering does this motion meet the conditions set down in the by-laws as explained in the briefing note?
Does this vote indicate approval of these amendments as required?
thanks avri
On 14-Jul-14 14:53, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
Thomas, the proposed revised policy wording reads: - For RC Scope 2 identifiers: instead of 90-days TMCH claims notification protection, the claims notification service will run for the life of the TMCH. This will entail: (1) a notice sent to a potential registrant who attempts to register an Exact Match of the protected RC Scope 2 identifier; and (2) if the registrant proceeds with the registration, a notice sent to the relevant RC entity informing it of the registration. In addition, in considering any modified or new dispute resolution procedure for IGOs and INGOs the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to take into account the GAC request that such a procedure should be at low or no cost in relation to the specified acronyms of the international Red Cross & Red Crescent movement (ICRC, CICR, IFRC, FICR). - For IGO Scope 2 identifiers: instead of 90-days TMCH claims notification protection, the claims notification service will run for the life of the TMCH. This will entail: (1) a notice sent to a potential registrant who attempts to register an Exact Match of the protected IGO Scope 2 Acronym; and (2) if the registrant proceeds with the registration, a notice sent to the relevant IGO informing it of the registration. In addition, in considering any modified or new dispute resolution procedure for IGOs and INGOs the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to take into account the GAC request that such a procedure should be at low or no cost to the IGO. Further, in considering any such modified or new dispute resolution procedure the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to consider modifying certain aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs, and the Are we REALLY sure that is what the NGPC was asking for? For the RC, their words were "permanently protected from unauthorized use". A claims notice sounds pretty far from protected from unauthorized use. Moreover, since they do not necessarily have TMs of the names, the current after-the-fact protection mechanisms would not suffice, and even if/when they do, the damage they are looking to prevent may be over long before such remedies would kick in. For the IGO names, their words were "If a registrant registers an IGO's protected acronym, the IGO would receive a notification of the registration from the TMCH for the life of the TMCH". The text above starts with the text "the claims notification service will run for the life of the TMCH" but then describes both the Claims Notification Service AND the Claims Notice. From http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-..., section 3, I quote:
The "Claims Services" provide both (i) notices to potential domain name registrants that a domain name they are seeking to register in a TLD matches a Trademark Record of a Trademark Holder that has been verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse (a "Claims Notice") and (ii) Notifications of Registered Names ("NORNs") (as such term is defined in the Functional Specifications). The Claims Notice is intended to provide clear notice to the prospective domain name registrant of the scope of the Trademark Holder's rights.
So they are asking for NORN for the life of the TMCH, but the proposed new recommendation text provides both the Claims Notice and NORN. Alan At 14/07/2014 02:53 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
Was going to comment on this, but Alan captured my questions exactly. In London, I was operating under the impression that we were discussing lifetime -notifications-, but the amendments indicate lifetime -claims-. Please correct me if I¹ve got this wrong. Thanks-- J. On 7/14/14, 18:23 , "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thomas, the proposed revised policy wording reads:
- For RC Scope 2 identifiers: instead of 90-days TMCH claims notification protection, the claims notification service will run for the life of the TMCH. This will entail: (1) a notice sent to a potential registrant who attempts to register an Exact Match of the protected RC Scope 2 identifier; and (2) if the registrant proceeds with the registration, a notice sent to the relevant RC entity informing it of the registration. In addition, in considering any modified or new dispute resolution procedure for IGOs and INGOs the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to take into account the GAC request that such a procedure should be at low or no cost in relation to the specified acronyms of the international Red Cross & Red Crescent movement (ICRC, CICR, IFRC, FICR).
- For IGO Scope 2 identifiers: instead of 90-days TMCH claims notification protection, the claims notification service will run for the life of the TMCH. This will entail: (1) a notice sent to a potential registrant who attempts to register an Exact Match of the protected IGO Scope 2 Acronym; and (2) if the registrant proceeds with the registration, a notice sent to the relevant IGO informing it of the registration. In addition, in considering any modified or new dispute resolution procedure for IGOs and INGOs the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to take into account the GAC request that such a procedure should be at low or no cost to the IGO. Further, in considering any such modified or new dispute resolution procedure the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to consider modifying certain aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs, and the
Are we REALLY sure that is what the NGPC was asking for?
For the RC, their words were "permanently protected from unauthorized use". A claims notice sounds pretty far from protected from unauthorized use. Moreover, since they do not necessarily have TMs of the names, the current after-the-fact protection mechanisms would not suffice, and even if/when they do, the damage they are looking to prevent may be over long before such remedies would kick in.
For the IGO names, their words were "If a registrant registers an IGO's protected acronym, the IGO would receive a notification of the registration from the TMCH for the life of the TMCH". The text above starts with the text "the claims notification service will run for the life of the TMCH" but then describes both the Claims Notification Service AND the Claims Notice. From http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirement s-28feb14-en.pdf, section 3, I quote:
The "Claims Services" provide both (i) notices to potential domain name registrants that a domain name they are seeking to register in a TLD matches a Trademark Record of a Trademark Holder that has been verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse (a "Claims Notice") and (ii) Notifications of Registered Names ("NORNs") (as such term is defined in the Functional Specifications). The Claims Notice is intended to provide clear notice to the prospective domain name registrant of the scope of the Trademark Holder's rights.
So they are asking for NORN for the life of the TMCH, but the proposed new recommendation text provides both the Claims Notice and NORN.
Alan
At 14/07/2014 02:53 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
Dear Councillors, To facilitate referencing the attached documents have been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/proposed-amendment-policy-rc-igo-14jul14-en.... http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-advice-gnso-council-modification-15jul14... The motion is posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+July+2014 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: lundi 14 juillet 2014 20:53 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] IGO/RC motion All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments. Kind regards, Thomas
Some other thoughts: First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair." Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.² Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.² Thanks‹ J. On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
Hello James and everyone, (Collating both your questions/emails into one reply) On the proposed modification, i.e. Notifications vs Claims, that is one of the options/topics that the Council may (should?) discuss and determine which - or some other - is the preferable proposal. On the Resolved clause language, the idea was to track the language and intent of Section 16 of the PDP Manual, which does speak of reconvening the WG (then called the PDP Team). FYI here is the wording for Section 16: "Approved GNSO Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows: 1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or modifications; 2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days; 3. The GNSO Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favor.” I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, "<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
Mary, on the proposed modifications, it is fine to have Council discuss what changes to pass on to the WG. I am sure that for some, the answer is NO CHANGES! But I thought that the point of this exercise was to consider what the NGPC is prepared to offer to the GAC. In the case of the IGO change, the wording is considering a lot more that what *I* think the NGPC asked for (and therefore, in my opinion, will be a LOT harder to come to closure on). In the case of the RCRC, what is being proposed in the resolution is less than what the NGPC wants to propose (base on my reading). So what we need is clarity on EXACTLY what the NGPC is asking for. Then we can decide to alter it or not. According to the page that Glen posted, this wording was written by staff. Can we please have confirmation that it is indeed what the NGPC meant (since it is not what they said as far as I can see). Or if it is not what they meant, can we have an alternative version. This is going to be a difficult enough thing to carry out without this added level of confusion. Alan At 16/07/2014 01:23 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello James and everyone,
(Collating both your questions/emails into one reply)
On the proposed modification, i.e. Notifications vs Claims, that is one of the options/topics that the Council may (should?) discuss and determine which - or some other - is the preferable proposal.
On the Resolved clause language, the idea was to track the language and intent of Section 16 of the PDP Manual, which does speak of reconvening the WG (then called the PDP Team). FYI here is the wording for Section 16:
"Approved GNSO Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows:
1.
The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or modifications;
2.
The proposed amendments or modifications are posted for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days;
3.
The GNSO Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favor.â
I hope this helps.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, "<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to consider.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanksâ¹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
I support the suggestions James made. V. Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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.
All, in the light of the discussions on the list, I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation. I am sure that this will help us understand better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris. Thanks, Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>:
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
Hi, I think that it would be good to understand the Board's view on this and am glad Chris is joining the meeting. At this point I can't support this group of amendments to our previous PDP recommendations. NCSG support for the recommendations itself was tentative and was largely based on the WG having done due diligence and based on the inclusion of NCSG opposition stmts in the report. As these motions take us further into granting special privilege/protection to IGOs that were already difficult for the NCSG to accept, support is sparse for extras in the SG. Beyond that we had a very specific condition on extra privileges/protections for IGOs and that was a matching treatment for INGOs, which the WG by and large accepted. These motions do not include any notion of equivalent treatment for INGOs. Is there any chance of separating the RCRC amendments from the IGO amendments? While the feeling on IGO special privilege and protections is fairly consistent in the NCSG, though we have a meeting soon to discuss it further, there is a more mixed NCSG reaction over what might be acceptable special privilege/protection for the RCRC and the national societies. Personally I could see supporting the RCRC amendments, though not the IGO amendments - though as I say NCSG have yet to meet on this issue and I may yet be convinced otherwise. Finally I add that following all the clarifications we have received on this procedure, it is my intention to only vote in favor of an amendment that I would still be able to vote for if/when the reconstituted-WG were to say yes to it. I also feel that for any amendment I personally voted in favor of in council, I would need to be able to argue for it, at least initially, in my SG and in a reconstituted-WG. I realize that not everyone is interpreting the procedure in this way. I would add that I think this procedure could benefit from analysis by the SCI after this particlar event has resolved itself. thanks avri On 19-Jul-14 14:59, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, in the light of the discussions on the list, I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation.
I am sure that this will help us understand better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
Thanks, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>:
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
All, in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us with information. However, such information will not be with us before the call. In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are - getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a procedure that the Council has never invoked before and - the substance of the motion itself. Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further clarification. Thanks, Thomas Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
All, in the light of the discussions on the list, I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation.
I am sure that this will help us understand better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
Thanks, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>:
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
Thanks for the heads up Thomas. That unfortunately adds another month to the process. Is there really no way to get clarification of what they meant outside of a Council meeting? This does not speak well to our communications skills. Alan At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us with information. However, such information will not be with us before the call.
In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are
- getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a procedure that the Council has never invoked before and - the substance of the motion itself.
Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further clarification.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
All, in the light of the discussions on the list,
I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation.
I am sure that this will help us understand
better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
Thanks, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if
for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to consider.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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,
Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>: they even need a permanent chair 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
Alan, Thomas, et. al., In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote enhances likelihood of passage. There are voices in the BC who question why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: 7/23/14 11:41 am To: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Thanks for the heads up Thomas. That unfortunately adds another month to the process. Is there really no way to get clarification of what they meant outside of a Council meeting? This does not speak well to our communications skills. Alan At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us with information. However, such information will not be with us before the call.
In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are
- getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a procedure that the Council has never invoked before and - the substance of the motion itself.
Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further clarification.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
All, in the light of the discussions on the list,
I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation.
I am sure that this will help us understand
better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
Thanks, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if
for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to consider.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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,
Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>: they even need a permanent chair 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
Hi, On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote enhances likelihood of passage. There are voices in the BC who question why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
For clarity sake: By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP recommendations? Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because the GAC disagrees with our recommendations. Something which should not come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make recommendations on this topic. Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations amended as suggested by the Board. thanks avri
Hi, If I understand Avri’s question correctly, then I am wondering the same. Wasn’t the ICANN board supposed to facilitate some sort of dialogue between the GNSO and the GAC to reconcile the differences between our recommendations and what they have stated are their wishes on this topic? Have I missed that? It seems to me that if the GAC desires further protections for IGOs/INGOs, then it would be helpful if their reasons and arguments supporting this would be provided (in some detail) before the PDP WG is asked to reconvene, giving the WG members something to work with. In that light, I don’t think a postponement of the motion to a later meeting is such a bad thing. Thanks. Amr On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote enhances likelihood of passage. There are voices in the BC who question why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
For clarity sake:
By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP recommendations?
Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because the GAC disagrees with our recommendations. Something which should not come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make recommendations on this topic.
Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations amended as suggested by the Board.
thanks
avri
Hello, all. For clarity's sake, my reference to "a decision that was unanimously closed" refers to the vote taken on the motion offered at our Buenos Aires meeting for the protection of ICO and INGO names. It was unanimously passed. As such, it should have easily been approved by the Board. But the GAC advice, offered in its normal course, at the end of the policymaking process, diverged. The Board is free to pick one or the other or some variation of each, but to do so requires an explanation and, even though the rules allow it, the present act and as precedence would be seen as altering the axis balance of ICANN. It may well be that even if we approve the motion on the table tomorrow, we will wind up right back where we are. But approval would create the opportunity for the Council to promote a path forward rather than petition the Board for crumbs. Also as Avri hints in her other question, there seems to be no new data or turn of events. That is why I described the motion being as much about politics as policy. The Council may choose to stand pat (right now I intend to vote for the motion), but doing so would accelerate the uncomfortable precedent setting I refer to above and give away the chance we have to make it play out in our policy arena. I would be happier with that (even though it might be messy and fail) than throwing it over the fence. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 7/23/14 4:35 pm To: "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, If I understand Avri's question correctly, then I am wondering the same. Wasn't the ICANN board supposed to facilitate some sort of dialogue between the GNSO and the GAC to reconcile the differences between our recommendations and what they have stated are their wishes on this topic? Have I missed that? It seems to me that if the GAC desires further protections for IGOs/INGOs, then it would be helpful if their reasons and arguments supporting this would be provided (in some detail) before the PDP WG is asked to reconvene, giving the WG members something to work with. In that light, I don't think a postponement of the motion to a later meeting is such a bad thing. Thanks. Amr On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote enhances likelihood of passage. There are voices in the BC who question why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
For clarity sake:
By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP recommendations?
Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because the GAC disagrees with our recommendations. Something which should not come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make recommendations on this topic.
Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations amended as suggested by the Board.
thanks
avri
At 23/07/2014 03:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote enhances likelihood of passage. There are voices in the BC who question why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
For clarity sake:
By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP recommendations?
Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because the GAC disagrees with our recommendations. Something which should not come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make recommendations on this topic.
Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations amended as suggested by the Board.
I think that an argument can be made that the WG did not thoroughly discuss on its merits, the RC issue on the table, nod did it ever consider what I understand to be the request on the IGO acronyms. We continually say that the GNSO Council should not be the policy making body, but WG are where the substantive discussions should take place. Given that, I do not agree that we should vet the detailed proposal before passing it to the WG. We should pass it to them with no comment and let them have the in depth conversations on the merits. Then the Council can agree or disagree with the recommendations they make (either way), along with their rationale. BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG. Alan
Hi, On 24-Jul-14 00:04, Alan Greenberg wrote:
We continually say that the GNSO Council should not be the policy making body, but WG are where the substantive discussions should take place. Given that, I do not agree that we should vet the detailed proposal before passing it to the WG. We should pass it to them with no comment and let them have the in depth conversations on the merits. Then the Council can agree or disagree with the recommendations they make (either way), along with their rationale.
I agree with you in principle on this. The problem is I do not believe that this is what the rule we are working under says. My interpretation of the rule and on of the clarification we got is that we have to. at least provisionally, approve the amendment we send them to reconsider.
BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.
My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the proposed amendments. I do not think the reopened group has the option to change the proposed amendments. A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule this is being presented under would not allow that. If we wanted that, we would need to change the amendments before sending them. avri
Hi Avri, this is my understanding as well. We either tell them: "Here is what we came up with, yes or no?" or we do nothing. Volker Am 24.07.2014 12:33, schrieb Avri Doria:
BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG. My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the
I agree with you in principle on this. The problem is I do not believe that this is what the rule we are working under says. My interpretation of the rule and on of the clarification we got is that we have to. at least provisionally, approve the amendment we send them to reconsider. the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the proposed amendments. I do not think the reopened group has the option to change the proposed amendments.
A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule this is being presented under would not allow that. If we wanted that, we would need to change the amendments before sending them.
avri
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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.
Hello all, On the procedural question, Section 16 does foresee the Council finally and ultimately taking a vote on the final form of the proposed policy modifications (if any) - that needs to be by Supermajority Vote. However, that occurs later on in the process - that is, after the reconvened WG has been consulted AND public comments received and reviewed. In terms of what the initial proposed modification looks like, while it¹s up to the Council to actually formulate such a proposal, the reconvened WG has the ability to comment in whatsoever way on that proposal, i.e. It could say ³Looks great², or ³Bad idea², or ³Well, we see what you¹re trying to do so how about doing it this way² etc. Then it¹s that WG comment back that the Council would consider in deciding finally whether to adopt its original formulation or some amended form (based on WG comment and/or public comment) or none. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
Hi Avri,
this is my understanding as well.
We either tell them: "Here is what we came up with, yes or no?" or we do nothing.
Volker
Am 24.07.2014 12:33, schrieb Avri Doria:
BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG. My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the
I agree with you in principle on this. The problem is I do not believe that this is what the rule we are working under says. My interpretation of the rule and on of the clarification we got is that we have to. at least provisionally, approve the amendment we send them to reconsider. the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the proposed amendments. I do not think the reopened group has the option to change the proposed amendments.
A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule this is being presented under would not allow that. If we wanted that, we would need to change the amendments before sending them.
avri
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
At 24/07/2014 06:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.
My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the proposed amendments. I do not think the reopened group has the option to change the proposed amendments.
A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule this is being presented under would not allow that. If we wanted that, we would need to change the amendments before sending them.
avri
I agree that if te WG is to consider it, it must be included by us when we send it to them. There is nothing as I see it that limits what we put in to what was in the letter. If adding this makes it more palatable to the NCSG, I think it is fair game to propose adding it. Alan
Alan (as well as James and others who have contributed to this and related threads), I think you have captured it very well in asking what exactly is being sought by the NGPC and, particularly, are there compromises which may be acceptable that we are not aware of. It is a fair point to ask about the communications and I assure you that Thomas and myself have worked behind the scenes. The challenge is that we have got clear indications of what might be acceptable, certainly in so far as the IGOs are concerned i.e. a notification service, but this has not been provided in writing or in a meeting with a representative or representatives of the NGPC so the Council does not have the benefit of this information. Perhaps as a consequence but in any event and, as you pointed out in your mail of 15 July, the text of the proposed policy wording appears to offer more (than the minimum requested) in the case of the IGOs and less in the case of the RCRC. Therefore, it seems to me that before we invoke a procedure that has some contention, we need to be as sure as we absolutely can be that we are invoking the procedure to deal with exactly what is being requested / may produce a satisfactory outcome. Hence the thinking along the lines Thomas has suggested i.e. as follows: 1. Let's make sure we are clear on and comfortable with how we invoke the procedure (Personally I found Mary's briefing note of very helpful in this regard). 2. Let's seek to get absolute (or as near as we can) clarity on what the NGPC is thinking via written or attended meeting input. Then, hopefully, we can somewhat smoothly put at least this aspect of this very time-consuming process behind us. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 23 July 2014 19:42 To: Thomas Rickert; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion Thanks for the heads up Thomas. That unfortunately adds another month to the process. Is there really no way to get clarification of what they meant outside of a Council meeting? This does not speak well to our communications skills. Alan At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us with information. However, such information will not be with us before the call.
In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are
- getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a procedure that the Council has never invoked before and - the substance of the motion itself.
Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further clarification.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
All, in the light of the discussions on the list,
I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation.
I am sure that this will help us understand
better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
Thanks, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if
for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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,
Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>: they even need a permanent chair 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
I accept that we should have direct clarification from the NGPC. However, I would also suggest that when the resolution is resubmitted to Council, we have our current best understanding of the request in the proposed wording. Alan At 24/07/2014 04:44 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Alan (as well as James and others who have contributed to this and related threads),
I think you have captured it very well in asking what exactly is being sought by the NGPC and, particularly, are there compromises which may be acceptable that we are not aware of.
It is a fair point to ask about the communications and I assure you that Thomas and myself have worked behind the scenes. The challenge is that we have got clear indications of what might be acceptable, certainly in so far as the IGOs are concerned i.e. a notification service, but this has not been provided in writing or in a meeting with a representative or representatives of the NGPC so the Council does not have the benefit of this information. Perhaps as a consequence but in any event and, as you pointed out in your mail of 15 July, the text of the proposed policy wording appears to offer more (than the minimum requested) in the case of the IGOs and less in the case of the RCRC.
Therefore, it seems to me that before we invoke a procedure that has some contention, we need to be as sure as we absolutely can be that we are invoking the procedure to deal with exactly what is being requested / may produce a satisfactory outcome.
Hence the thinking along the lines Thomas has suggested i.e. as follows:
1. Let's make sure we are clear on and comfortable with how we invoke the procedure (Personally I found Mary's briefing note of very helpful in this regard).
2. Let's seek to get absolute (or as near as we can) clarity on what the NGPC is thinking via written or attended meeting input.
Then, hopefully, we can somewhat smoothly put at least this aspect of this very time-consuming process behind us.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 23 July 2014 19:42 To: Thomas Rickert; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
Thanks for the heads up Thomas.
That unfortunately adds another month to the process. Is there really no way to get clarification of what they meant outside of a Council meeting? This does not speak well to our communications skills.
Alan
At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us with information. However, such information will not be with us before the call.
In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are
- getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a procedure that the Council has never invoked before and - the substance of the motion itself.
Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further clarification.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
All, in the light of the discussions on the list,
I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation.
I am sure that this will help us understand
better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
Thanks, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker
I support the suggestions James made.
V.
Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if
for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it should flow through the subsequent clauses. Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerÐ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the new group to report back if it needs more time? Proposed (friendly?) amendment: ³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for completion of its work.²
Thanks
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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,
Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>: they even need a permanent chair 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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
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.
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Amr Elsadr -
Avri Doria -
Glen de Saint Géry -
James M. Bladel -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Mary Wong -
Thomas Rickert -
Volker Greimann