Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Jeff (and others), I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 March document (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...) specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50. Alan At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Alan...my paraphrasing was incorrect. I hope that doesn't take away from the real point of my message which is the wording of the recommendation by the BGC and the assumptions they have made. I would ask that that be the focus of the discussion going forward. Let me restate that Neustar has no view one way or another on the substance of what is being implemented. -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:23 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Importance: High Jeff (and others), I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 March document (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...) specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50. Alan At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Jeff, I agree 100% with your concerns. This ICANN unilateralism is worrying, to say the least, and much bigger than the issue of the 50+ records. This may be the end of the multi-stakeholder model. Volker
Thanks Alan...my paraphrasing was incorrect.
I hope that doesn't take away from the real point of my message which is the wording of the recommendation by the BGC and the assumptions they have made. I would ask that that be the focus of the discussion going forward.
Let me restate that Neustar has no view one way or another on the substance of what is being implemented.
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:23 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Importance: High
Jeff (and others),
I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 March document (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...) specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50.
Alan
At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- 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.
From what I understand, there is one primary issue i.e. The rationale / logic (not the outcome) and the perceived implications for
Thanks Alan...my paraphrasing was incorrect.
I hope that doesn't take away from the real point of my message which is
In answer to Jeff's question, a couple of points: 1. Yes, happy to have this on the draft agenda for next meeting. 2. If we are to invite the BGC, we need to have a written invite and, ideally, talk with the Chair. Are you willing to draft the invite? Key point is to scope and focus the discussion. the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net] Sent: 22 May 2013 18:04 To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Jeff, I agree 100% with your concerns. This ICANN unilateralism is worrying, to say the least, and much bigger than the issue of the 50+ records. This may be the end of the multi-stakeholder model. Volker the wording of the recommendation by the BGC and the assumptions they have made. I would ask that that be the focus of the discussion going forward.
Let me restate that Neustar has no view one way or another on the
substance of what is being implemented.
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:23 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Importance: High
Jeff (and others),
I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 March document (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-s olution-memo-20mar13-en.pdf) specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH
for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50.
Alan
At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now
posted.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- 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.
From what I understand, there is one primary issue i.e. The rationale / logic (not the outcome) and the perceived implications for
Thanks Alan...my paraphrasing was incorrect.
I hope that doesn't take away from the real point of my message which is
Jeff, Our next council meeting is looming and I have a draft agenda in my hands. As below, happy to have this on the agenda but we need to frame the discussion if possible and invite one or more members of the BGC. Are you willing / able to draft the invite and include scoping the discussion? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 24 May 2013 17:56 To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Neuman, Jeff' Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse In answer to Jeff's question, a couple of points: 1. Yes, happy to have this on the draft agenda for next meeting. 2. If we are to invite the BGC, we need to have a written invite and, ideally, talk with the Chair. Are you willing to draft the invite? Key point is to scope and focus the discussion. the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net] Sent: 22 May 2013 18:04 To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Jeff, I agree 100% with your concerns. This ICANN unilateralism is worrying, to say the least, and much bigger than the issue of the 50+ records. This may be the end of the multi-stakeholder model. Volker the wording of the recommendation by the BGC and the assumptions they have made. I would ask that that be the focus of the discussion going forward.
Let me restate that Neustar has no view one way or another on the
substance of what is being implemented.
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:23 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Importance: High
Jeff (and others),
I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 March document (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-s olution-memo-20mar13-en.pdf) specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH
for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50.
Alan
At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now
posted.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- 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.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Jonathan Robinson -
Neuman, Jeff -
Volker Greimann