RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
Marika, Rather than working off of one statement Fadi made in Amsterdam and another statement he made in LA, can we get for tomorrow's meeting of the Council a definitive statement from ICANN as to where the "Strawman" actually is, what are the next proposed steps, and frankly where we are with the full implementation. I note that we are pretty much half way through this month and the final statement of work with the providers of the Clearinghouse is still expected to be completed this month (according to the latest webinar in which icann indicated they are on target for completing this in February). That being the case, logic would dictate that if icann is indeed on schedule, then the final solution must already be known. Therefore, before we engage in a seemingly endless discussion hypothesizing about statements made in different parts of the world, perhaps we can get a definitive statement directly from the source. Thanks. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:27 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz; john@crediblecontext.com Cc: Mason Cole; council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council All, it may be worth noting that Fadi in his meeting with the NCPH in LA further clarified the comments made in Amsterdam as follows: One is to clarify a comment I made in Amsterdam on Friday - after Davos I stopped in Amsterdam and the press and some other people carried my comment and extrapolated it in ways that were not true. So I don't have time to go fix it with the public but you are who matters so I'm just going to explain it. I did say publicly that I believed the way the trademark clearinghouse activities happened, I have made a mistake. And people construed that to mean I felt the whole thing was a mistake and we shouldn't of done it and, you know, this - let me clarify. I think as I have told you and I told some of you in person, I'm new to this process, (understand) that I'm new to this process and that I have learned - a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. It will be awhile before I fully appreciate the world I'm in now. And as such, what I explained is that the way I went about solving what I thought was an issue in Toronto and I needed to do something about it and I still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it. The mistake I did is that I did not fully appreciate the process and understand how the process should work. And some people got very upset with me and I have now a complaint with the (best) person who's spending two hours with me this afternoon with the complainant to discuss with and that's fine. That's the process and I respect it deeply and I'll be there for it but I am not at all saying and will not say and in fact I'm in vehement agreement with many of you in this room that we do have some issues and they have to be solved. If we are a responsible industry we have to face these issues and deal with them. If I made a mistake (in how) that's fine, I'll fix that and get on with how, but I am not shying away from the importance of the matters you brought to my attention and that I still believe need to be addressed. (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/39421288/transcript+CSG+-+CEO+29+Jan+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1359562587000). With best regards, Marika From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:25 To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is. Sent from my iPad On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: Mason, Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top? Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm To: "council@gnso.icann.org List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Council colleagues -- As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply. The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council. Thanks -- Mason
The task before us is to fulfill Fadi's request for input from the council. That's what the draft seeks to do, and from discussions and comments between the Dec. 28 draft and today, the draft accurately represents the view of the majority of the council. As discussed before, the remaining item of business is documenting the views of the IPC and BC. It obviously will disagree with the view of other councilors, which given the discussion since Tornoto is to be expected -- that position simply needs to be included in the communication. The comment period is long closed, and most SGs have weighed in. The council communication is the last remaining item, and it's not a complicated task. I would suggest that following discussion on tomorrow's call, the drafting team can and should complete the letter and submit it to Fadi next week. On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Marika,
Rather than working off of one statement Fadi made in Amsterdam and another statement he made in LA, can we get for tomorrow's meeting of the Council a definitive statement from ICANN as to where the "Strawman" actually is, what are the next proposed steps, and frankly where we are with the full implementation. I note that we are pretty much half way through this month and the final statement of work with the providers of the Clearinghouse is still expected to be completed this month (according to the latest webinar in which icann indicated they are on target for completing this in February). That being the case, logic would dictate that if icann is indeed on schedule, then the final solution must already be known. Therefore, before we engage in a seemingly endless discussion hypothesizing about statements made in different parts of the world, perhaps we can get a definitive statement directly from the source.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
-----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:27 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz; john@crediblecontext.com Cc: Mason Cole; council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
All, it may be worth noting that Fadi in his meeting with the NCPH in LA further clarified the comments made in Amsterdam as follows:
One is to clarify a comment I made in Amsterdam on Friday - after Davos I stopped in Amsterdam and the press and some other people carried my comment and extrapolated it in ways that were not true. So I don't have time to go fix it with the public but you are who matters so I'm just going to explain it. I did say publicly that I believed the way the trademark clearinghouse activities happened, I have made a mistake. And people construed that to mean I felt the whole thing was a mistake and we shouldn't of done it and, you know, this - let me clarify. I think as I have told you and I told some of you in person, I'm new to this process, (understand) that I'm new to this process and that I have learned - a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. It will be awhile before I fully appreciate the world I'm in now.
And as such, what I explained is that the way I went about solving what I thought was an issue in Toronto and I needed to do something about it and I still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it. The mistake I did is that I did not fully appreciate the process and understand how the process should work. And some people got very upset with me and I have now a complaint with the (best) person who's spending two hours with me this afternoon with the complainant to discuss with and that's fine. That's the process and I respect it deeply and I'll be there for it but I am not at all saying and will not say and in fact I'm in vehement agreement with many of you in this room that we do have some issues and they have to be solved. If we are a responsible industry we have to face these issues and deal with them.
If I made a mistake (in how) that's fine, I'll fix that and get on with how, but I am not shying away from the importance of the matters you brought to my attention and that I still believe need to be addressed.
With best regards,
Marika
From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:25 To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is.
Sent from my iPad
On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
Mason,
Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top?
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm To: "council@gnso.icann.org List" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Council colleagues --
As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply.
The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council.
Thanks --
Mason
For your information, this is the feedback I've received from Karen Lentz with regard to the status of implementation of the TMCH: The current status on the strawman model is that the comment period has closed as of last week. There was significant interest in these proposals and we are reviewing the feedback to determine whether some/any/all parts of the proposal should be implemented. The Clearinghouse providers have been anticipating that the proposals can be implemented if agreed, pending decision on the path forward. Best regards, Marika On 13/02/13 12:46, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
Marika,
Rather than working off of one statement Fadi made in Amsterdam and another statement he made in LA, can we get for tomorrow's meeting of the Council a definitive statement from ICANN as to where the "Strawman" actually is, what are the next proposed steps, and frankly where we are with the full implementation. I note that we are pretty much half way through this month and the final statement of work with the providers of the Clearinghouse is still expected to be completed this month (according to the latest webinar in which icann indicated they are on target for completing this in February). That being the case, logic would dictate that if icann is indeed on schedule, then the final solution must already be known. Therefore, before we engage in a seemingly endless discussion hypothesizing about statements made in different parts of the world, perhaps we can get a definitive statement directly from the source.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
-----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:27 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz; john@crediblecontext.com Cc: Mason Cole; council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
All, it may be worth noting that Fadi in his meeting with the NCPH in LA further clarified the comments made in Amsterdam as follows:
One is to clarify a comment I made in Amsterdam on Friday - after Davos I stopped in Amsterdam and the press and some other people carried my comment and extrapolated it in ways that were not true. So I don't have time to go fix it with the public but you are who matters so I'm just going to explain it. I did say publicly that I believed the way the trademark clearinghouse activities happened, I have made a mistake. And people construed that to mean I felt the whole thing was a mistake and we shouldn't of done it and, you know, this - let me clarify. I think as I have told you and I told some of you in person, I'm new to this process, (understand) that I'm new to this process and that I have learned - a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. It will be awhile before I fully appreciate the world I'm in now.
And as such, what I explained is that the way I went about solving what I thought was an issue in Toronto and I needed to do something about it and I still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it. The mistake I did is that I did not fully appreciate the process and understand how the process should work. And some people got very upset with me and I have now a complaint with the (best) person who's spending two hours with me this afternoon with the complainant to discuss with and that's fine. That's the process and I respect it deeply and I'll be there for it but I am not at all saying and will not say and in fact I'm in vehement agreement with many of you in this room that we do have some issues and they have to be solved. If we are a responsible industry we have to face these issues and deal with them.
If I made a mistake (in how) that's fine, I'll fix that and get on with how, but I am not shying away from the importance of the matters you brought to my attention and that I still believe need to be addressed.
(see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/39421288/transcript+CSG+-+C... +29+Jan+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1359562587000).
With best regards,
Marika
From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:25 To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is.
Sent from my iPad
On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
Mason,
Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top?
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm To: "council@gnso.icann.org List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Council colleagues -- As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply. The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council. Thanks -- Mason
participants (3)
-
Marika Konings -
Mason Cole -
Neuman, Jeff