Discussion kick-off on BC/IPC strawman proposal as blogged by Fadi
Dear fellow councillors, frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon. We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development. While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should. These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum: "Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP" From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move: -Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy. -Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations. -Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again). -Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others. Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content. Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper. Best regards, Volker Greimann
Volker, Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its imbalance. I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be. While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes of a flawed process. I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency, participation and balance. All the best, Maria On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>wrote:
Dear fellow councillors,
frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon.
We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development.
While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should.
These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum:
"Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP"
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move:
-Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy.
-Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations.
-Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again).
-Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others.
Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content.
Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
Hi Maria, I just read a very good summary from a potential applicants' perspective: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121129_new_gtlds_last_minute_end_arounds_and... Jon does a really good job pointing out how the current proposals contradict previous GNSO, Board and other community decisions and go against previously agreed upon compromise positions. I really recommend this read for all councillors that may not know the full background of the prior discussions on these issues. Best, Volker
Volker,
Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its imbalance.
I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be.
While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes of a flawed process.
I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency, participation and balance.
All the best, Maria
On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Dear fellow councillors,
frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon.
We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development.
While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should.
These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum:
"Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP"
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move:
-Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy.
-Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations.
-Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again).
-Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others.
Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content.
Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
-- 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.
I agree with Volker's concerns too an find them to be well stated. Jeff's email regarding policy vs. implementation is on target as well. Unfortunately, the community has looked for and found ways to outright circumvent the processes we all agreed to for establishing policy when those processes don't suit them. Doing so robs us all of predictability, which I know is of little concern to some, but is very important to most. The sooner we stop playing these games the better. In Toronto, we heard again accusations that the GNSO is broken, that it takes too long to develop policy, that confidence is lacking. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that's correct, but the perception remains. My belief is we have a duty to the council and to the community to address that head on and improve our performance. We can, for example, improve the PDP timeline, not propose policy that has little chance to come into effect and thus waste our and staff's time, be respectful of the workload the council can actually carry, and set priorities. Councilors and others have discussed these issues before and we have yet to see a good result, but, blame the optimist in me, we're all smart people and if we build some trust and work together, we can take people by surprise and make some changes for the better. Until we do, I'm concerned we will continue to see process freelancing like this, which may be a short-term gain for some but will continue to erode the GNSO model -- that would indeed be a disappointing outcome for the ICANN model we all seem to support. On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
Volker,
Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its imbalance.
I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be.
While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes of a flawed process.
I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency, participation and balance.
All the best, Maria
On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Dear fellow councillors,
frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon.
We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development.
While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should.
These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum:
"Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP"
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move:
-Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy.
-Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations.
-Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again).
-Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others.
Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content.
Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and
Thanks Mason, Your commitment to working on solutions and through them to improving reality and perceptions is appreciated, by me at least! I do believe in your point, we as a Council need to put our own house (or should that be houses?) in as ordered a state as possible. To me, this means working effectively with all on the Council and also outwardly towards and within our respective SGs. Thanks. Jonathan. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: 30 November 2012 17:32 To: Maria Farrell Cc: Volker Greimann; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Discussion kick-off on BC/IPC strawman proposal as blogged by Fadi I agree with Volker's concerns too an find them to be well stated. Jeff's email regarding policy vs. implementation is on target as well. Unfortunately, the community has looked for and found ways to outright circumvent the processes we all agreed to for establishing policy when those processes don't suit them. Doing so robs us all of predictability, which I know is of little concern to some, but is very important to most. The sooner we stop playing these games the better. In Toronto, we heard again accusations that the GNSO is broken, that it takes too long to develop policy, that confidence is lacking. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that's correct, but the perception remains. My belief is we have a duty to the council and to the community to address that head on and improve our performance. We can, for example, improve the PDP timeline, not propose policy that has little chance to come into effect and thus waste our and staff's time, be respectful of the workload the council can actually carry, and set priorities. Councilors and others have discussed these issues before and we have yet to see a good result, but, blame the optimist in me, we're all smart people and if we build some trust and work together, we can take people by surprise and make some changes for the better. Until we do, I'm concerned we will continue to see process freelancing like this, which may be a short-term gain for some but will continue to erode the GNSO model -- that would indeed be a disappointing outcome for the ICANN model we all seem to support. On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Maria Farrell wrote: Volker, Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its imbalance. I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be. While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes of a flawed process. I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency, participation and balance. All the best, Maria On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: Dear fellow councillors, frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon. We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development. While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should. These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum: "Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP" the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move: -Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy. -Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations. -Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again). -Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others. Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content. Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper. Best regards, Volker Greimann
All, this is a very good and healthy discussion. To me, the question is, how do we take this topic kicked off by Volker, which is partially congruent with the issue Jeff (and his colleagues) have been working on, forward. Does the Council wish to react to this specific instance? Do we wish to approach this more generally? With the new season that has been announced to have started at ICANN there might be an opportunity (I hope) to improve the way we work and interact inside ICANN. There are multiple dimensions to what Volker described (although there are other, comparable cases, too), namely the (lack of) interaction by the Council with the CEO, the Board, the GNSO and individual groups in the GNSO. There is no simple catch-all solution to all these areas and each of the aforementioned needs to be approached differently. However, what makes me worry is that the reason for the symptoms we see might be the fact that the GNSO is perceived to be ineffective. Thus, I would even go further than Jonathan and say that we need to put the GNSO and its Council in as ordered a state as possible. This is certainly easier said than done, but I guess if the Council works quicker and (I know I am repeating myself here) uses all the tools it has available, not only PDPs working towards Consensus Policies, to adequately respond to the tasks that are in its remit, - there will be less reason for individual groups to try to bypass the GNSO Council and - the CEO and Board and maybe even the GAC might be more immune against attempts to bypass the system. Can I ask we sort of formalize our work on the policy/implementation and this subject in a subgroup that produces concrete proposals for the Council? Thanks, Thomas Am 03.12.2012 um 14:52 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>:
Thanks Mason,
Your commitment to working on solutions and through them to improving reality and perceptions is appreciated, by me at least!
I do believe in your point, we as a Council need to put our own house (or should that be houses?) in as ordered a state as possible. To me, this means working effectively with all on the Council and also outwardly towards and within our respective SGs.
Thanks.
Jonathan.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: 30 November 2012 17:32 To: Maria Farrell Cc: Volker Greimann; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Discussion kick-off on BC/IPC strawman proposal as blogged by Fadi
I agree with Volker's concerns too an find them to be well stated.
Jeff's email regarding policy vs. implementation is on target as well. Unfortunately, the community has looked for and found ways to outright circumvent the processes we all agreed to for establishing policy when those processes don't suit them. Doing so robs us all of predictability, which I know is of little concern to some, but is very important to most. The sooner we stop playing these games the better.
In Toronto, we heard again accusations that the GNSO is broken, that it takes too long to develop policy, that confidence is lacking. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that's correct, but the perception remains. My belief is we have a duty to the council and to the community to address that head on and improve our performance. We can, for example, improve the PDP timeline, not propose policy that has little chance to come into effect and thus waste our and staff's time, be respectful of the workload the council can actually carry, and set priorities. Councilors and others have discussed these issues before and we have yet to see a good result, but, blame the optimist in me, we're all smart people and if we build some trust and work together, we can take people by surprise and make some changes for the better.
Until we do, I'm concerned we will continue to see process freelancing like this, which may be a short-term gain for some but will continue to erode the GNSO model -- that would indeed be a disappointing outcome for the ICANN model we all seem to support.
On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
Volker,
Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its imbalance.
I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be.
While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes of a flawed process.
I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency, participation and balance.
All the best, Maria
On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Dear fellow councillors,
frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon.
We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development.
While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should.
These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum:
"Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP"
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move:
-Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy.
-Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations.
-Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again).
-Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others.
Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content.
Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
Can I ask we sort of formalize our work on the policy/implementation and this subject in a subgroup that produces concrete >>proposals for the Council?
This sounds like a sensible suggestion to me, Thomas. All the best, Maria On 7 December 2012 21:41, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, this is a very good and healthy discussion. To me, the question is, how do we take this topic kicked off by Volker, which is partially congruent with the issue Jeff (and his colleagues) have been working on, forward.
Does the Council wish to react to this specific instance? Do we wish to approach this more generally?
With the new season that has been announced to have started at ICANN there might be an opportunity (I hope) to improve the way we work and interact inside ICANN. There are multiple dimensions to what Volker described (although there are other, comparable cases, too), namely the (lack of) interaction by the Council with the CEO, the Board, the GNSO and individual groups in the GNSO. There is no simple catch-all solution to all these areas and each of the aforementioned needs to be approached differently.
However, what makes me worry is that the reason for the symptoms we see might be the fact that the GNSO is perceived to be ineffective. Thus, I would even go further than Jonathan and say that we need to put the GNSO and its Council in as ordered a state as possible. This is certainly easier said than done, but I guess if the Council works quicker and (I know I am repeating myself here) uses all the tools it has available, not only PDPs working towards Consensus Policies, to adequately respond to the tasks that are in its remit,
- there will be less reason for individual groups to try to bypass the GNSO Council and - the CEO and Board and maybe even the GAC might be more immune against attempts to bypass the system.
Can I ask we sort of formalize our work on the policy/implementation and this subject in a subgroup that produces concrete proposals for the Council?
Thanks, Thomas
Am 03.12.2012 um 14:52 schrieb Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>:
Thanks Mason,****
Your commitment to working on solutions and through them to improving reality and perceptions is appreciated, by me at least!****
I do believe in your point, we as a Council need to put our own house (or should that be houses?) in as ordered a state as possible.**** To me, this means working effectively with all on the Council and also outwardly towards and within our respective SGs.****
Thanks.****
Jonathan.****
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mason Cole *Sent:* 30 November 2012 17:32 *To:* Maria Farrell *Cc:* Volker Greimann; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Discussion kick-off on BC/IPC strawman proposal as blogged by Fadi**** ** ** I agree with Volker's concerns too an find them to be well stated.**** ** ** Jeff's email regarding policy vs. implementation is on target as well. Unfortunately, the community has looked for and found ways to outright circumvent the processes we all agreed to for establishing policy when those processes don't suit them. Doing so robs us all of predictability, which I know is of little concern to some, but is very important to most. The sooner we stop playing these games the better.**** ** ** In Toronto, we heard again accusations that the GNSO is broken, that it takes too long to develop policy, that confidence is lacking. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that's correct, but the perception remains. My belief is we have a duty to the council and to the community to address that head on and improve our performance. We can, for example, improve the PDP timeline, not propose policy that has little chance to come into effect and thus waste our and staff's time, be respectful of the workload the council can actually carry, and set priorities. Councilors and others have discussed these issues before and we have yet to see a good result, but, blame the optimist in me, we're all smart people and if we build some trust and work together, we can take people by surprise and make some changes for the better. **** ** ** Until we do, I'm concerned we will continue to see process freelancing like this, which may be a short-term gain for some but will continue to erode the GNSO model -- that would indeed be a disappointing outcome for the ICANN model we all seem to support.**** ** ** ** ** On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:****
****
Volker,
Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its imbalance.
I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be.
While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes of a flawed process.
I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency, participation and balance.
All the best, Maria**** On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:****
Dear fellow councillors,
frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon.
We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development.
While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should.
These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum:
"Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP"
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move:
-Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy.
-Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations.
-Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again).
-Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others.
Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content.
Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann**** ** ** ** **
___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn
Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0
Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
participants (5)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Maria Farrell -
Mason Cole -
Thomas Rickert -
Volker Greimann