RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Dear James and Volker: Thank you both for your clarifying comments. I think you have hit on the heart of the issue: “[B]y crafting registration policies and accreditation rules carefully, dotBrand owners can differentiate.” “The brand owner can simply direct its affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, and Z as a component of the licensing agreement.” Despite current industry practice, those suggestions could be interpreted by some as indirect discrimination by the registry, vis-à-vis its registration policies or licensing agreements, in conflict with Registry Agreement §2.9(a). Personally, I might suggest one compromise way forward would be for the Council to request a formal opinion from the ICANN legal department affirming the propriety of your suggested approaches in view of the Registry Agreement’s prohibitions against discrimination. In addition, it behooves me to reiterate on list the formal IPC position on the matter, which I established during our last Council teleconference. The IPC supports the preferred registrar exemption for dot brand TLDs. It is consistent with existing policy work, which explicitly recognized that the non-discrimination requirement “has not always worked for very small, specialized gTLDs,” and that “the possible impact … is that they can be at the mercy of registrars form whom there is no good business reason to devote resources.” Added to that existing policy work are the recent and myriad public comments on Specification Thirteen espousing elements of trust, confidence, security and plain common sense appurtenant to this preferred registrar exemption. Surely, there are caveats that can be established to assuage lingering concerns with respect to any slippery slope eroding non-discrimination principles in the larger, non-branded TLDs. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> * Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:42:19 +0000 * Accept-language: en-US * Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; * In-reply-to: <535F6034.4040700@key-systems.net<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16083.html>> * List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Thread-index: Ac9jLEUHNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAAV0EkAAA1rdoA= * Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question ________________________________ It’s actually even simpler than that: the brand owner can simply direct its affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, and Z as a component of the licensing agreement. J. From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at 3:17 To: "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Hi Brian, I think you misunderstand. We do not assume a Single User-Single Registrant model in our statements. We are fuly aware that the Specification allows registrations also to affiliates and certain licensees. However, by crafting registration policies and accreditation rules carefully, dotBrand owners can differentiate. Just look at .WED for a registry almost no registrar is currently interested in carrying. Further, they can discriminate freely on the registrant level. Therefore, on a purely outcome-oriented level, it is our opinion that everything that is intended to be achieved by this language can already be achieved under the current rules. Finally, outcomes put aside, on a purely legalistic level, we are currently looking at contradicting languages. While Rec 19 recommends one thing, the proposed language sets out to create a loophole for just that thing Rec 19 seeks to prevent. This is inconsistency per definition, no matter how well-intentioned and worthwhile the intent is. To go beyond the language of Rec 19, additional policy work of some form is needed. As many constituencies have argued for a long time, the council does not have the role of deciding or setting aside policy on its own, it merely structures and channels the process. Best regards, Volker Greimann Am 28.04.2014 23:53, schrieb Winterfeldt, Brian J.: Dear James and Volker: Please let me know if I understand correctly the RrSG position based your comments below: · The proposed amendment to Specification 13 is inconsistent with policy recommendation 19 because no discrimination between registrars should be permitted; · Dot Brands possess the sole ability to execute bulk transfers; · Dot Brands, as registrants, are able to choose their own preferred registrars; and · Dot Brands can implement registration policies and requirements to limit the services provided by registrars to only eligible registrants. Forgive me if my encapsulation is wrong, but if I understand the RrSG position correctly, then I am concerned that it may gloss over some important nuances. First, the RrSG position seems based on an assumption that dot Brand registries will be the sole registrant for bulk transfer and registrar selection purposes, whereas Specification Thirteen clearly permits Affiliates and Trademark Licensees to register names as well, thus complicating matters a bit. Second, the RrSG position seems to encourage dot brand registries to discriminate among registrars using registration policies, or perhaps other restrictions or side agreements among Affiliates and Trademark Licensees, at their own peril. Absent any assurances from ICANN legal regarding the propriety of these indirect work-around suggestions, I imagine that dot Brands would be much more comfortable with the direct and formal provision in the Registry Agreement that is presently under consideration by the Council. As I understand it, that is why the provision is necessary in the first place—so dot Brands cannot be alleged to violate the Registry Agreement in accrediting only one or two preferred corporate registrars. I look forward to your responsive feedback. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] (202) 625-3562 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> * Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000 * Accept-language: en-US * In-reply-to: <535E1AA3.6090807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>> * List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Thread-index: Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAJSGHAAAKWMf0oAGtHogAAH4hAAAAWYJ4AAWH6IgAAEVA2A * Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question ________________________________ Just to add to Volker¹s comments: Registrars have had a vigorous discussion on this topic, and provided feedback from diverse viewpoints. But on the narrow question--whether Spec 13 is compatible with Rec 19‹we generally believe it is not. We recognize that dot-BRAND applicants and TLDs are a new part of the domain name ecosystem, and will have unique interests not shared by other TLDs. For example, we whole-heartedly agree with the proposed restrictions in Spec 13 on ICANN¹s ability to re-delegate a string that was formerly part of a dot-BRAND. However, we do not agree with the assertion that these TLDs must be formally allowed to discriminate among ICANN-accredited registrars. In response to the concerns raised by proponents of Spec 13, about being beholden to a single registrar/service provider, we would point out that, as the Registry and Registrant, they would possess sole authority to execute a bulk transfer to a new exclusive registrar/service provider under existing ICANN policy. Additionally, to address concerns about ³trusted² vs. ³untrusted² registrar/service providers, we would note that, as the Registrant, they would be able to choose the services of any registrar (or group of registrars) of their choosing, without the need to include this language in the Registry Agreement. In fact, this concern is only legitimate in the scenario where the dot-BRAND TLD later extends registrations to unaffiliated third parties. In summary, Registrars do not believe that this component of Spec 13 is compatible with Recommendation 19 of the original new gTLD policy, and that while dot-Brand are likely to encounter concerns unique to their new category of TLD, these issues can be addressed under existing policy. Thanks‹ J. From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08 To: Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Dear council-members, after extensive discussion of the question put before us, the RrSG has likewise found this excemption to be inconsistent with both the language as well as with the spirit of the recommendation. The question we have been asked is not whether we like the proposed exemption or can live with it, but rather a very simple one: Is the proposed incorporation of an ability to restrict nondiscriminatory registrar access to dotBrand TLDs is not consistent with the intent and wording of Recommendation 19, or is it not. The recommendation explicitly states that "Registries (...) may not discriminate among (ICANN) accredited registrars". In other words, the language of the Recommendation 19 contradicts the proposed exemption. Therefore, to find the additional language to be consistent with the recommendation requires substantial arguments to that effect that would allow such an interpretation. To find it consistent because one likes the result or can live with the result does not fulfill this requirement. For such cases where implementation would conflict with existing policy, further policy work adjusting or confirming the Policy Recommendation is required. The GNSO Council should take the lead in initiating this policy work. Beyond the grammatical inconsistency of the Recommendation, the intent of the Recommendation also indicates inconsistency. As detailed in the final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains, the recommendation was supported by all GNSO Constituencies and Mrs Doria. According to the recollections of members of the new gTLD policy committee at the time the Recommendation was agreed upon, the concept of restricting registrar access was discussed in the context of community TLDs, which are in many ways similar to dotBrands. As registries have the ability under the Registry Agreement to restrict registrar access to their TLDs by establishing reasonable, nondiscriminatory accreditation criteria, it was ultimately agreed that discrimintation between registrars should not be permitted. In fact, the only public comment with regard to this recommendation came from the RyC, which was concerned that small, specialized registries may not be able to find a registrar to carry them. Note that this concern deals with a completely different problem. This concern led to the Vertical Integration Working group and the subsequent board decision allowing vertical integration. The idea of allowing only a few registrars does not appear in the Final Report. Finally, as registrants, dotBrands are perfectly free to discriminate between registrars. The Recommendation only deals with registries. By establishing certain registration requirements and policies, registries can further eliminate the ability of registrars to provide registry services beyond the eligible circle of registrants. Best regards, Volker Greimann Am 26.04.2014 16:54, schrieb Bret Fausett: Feedback: What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains.² Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.² http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for any exceptions for brands. Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is ³inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.² Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for .BRAND TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a specialized type of TLD that was not being considered carefully when Recommendation 19 was prepared. BUT, it is definitely inconsistent with the policy recommendation we made in August, 2007. Let¹s think about what this means. -- Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Jonathan, I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the deadline. Thanks, Thomas Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: Thanks Thomas, You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59 UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion on Monday. Let¹s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you have and retain flexibility to modify (if necessary) as we receive further feedback. Let¹s you and I talk on Monday. Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question All, this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only received one response from the registrars so far. Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP to cover their respective groups and since they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to chime in and respond. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> All, thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message. I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared in time. Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups? Certainly, one response per group is sufficient. If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions, please let me know. The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the NGPC for your review. Thanks, Thomas Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: All, Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it seems to me that the way forward is to focus as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner. This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to be submitted to the Council by 28 April for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting. We are being asked (full letter attached for reference) to 1. Š advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; or 2. advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups / constituencies is therefore: Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19? It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as possible along the following lines: · No. It is not inconsistent (Š with the letter and intent Š). and · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent. and · Are there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its response to the NGPC? OR · Yes. It is inconsistent ( Š with the letter and intent Š ). and · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is inconsistent. and · Is there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving this issue and in what time frame? Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the above. The timing is very tight. We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e. no, it is not inconsistent. Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the Council on or before 28 April) and an associated letter to the NGPC. Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel with the consultation work. Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets done? Thomas? I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of providing a representative, timely and effective response. I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the discussion to date. Please correct me if I have. Jonathan -- Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ * References: * Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html> * From: Volker Greimann ________________________________ <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16073.html> Chronological Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16074>
<<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16072.html>
Thread Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16074>
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html>
________________________________ Call Send SMS Add to Skype You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). =========================================================== -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. Attachment: ATT00001.png<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pngsFsslRKGPf.png> Description: ATT00001.png ________________________________ * References: * Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16083.html> * From: Volker Greimann ________________________________ <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16087.html> Chronological Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16088> >>> <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16083.html> Thread Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16088> >>><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html> ________________________________
Hi Brian, This suggestion seems to me to be more of an issue of discrimination by the registrant, not the registry. I don’t see this to be a problem. Registrants are free to choose whatever registrar they want to do business with, and don’t really need to explain their reasons for doing so. Having said that, it really seems to me that this conversation should be taking place on the WG level and not the Council level. Just an observation. Thanks. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 8:27 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> wrote:
Dear James and Volker:
Thank you both for your clarifying comments. I think you have hit on the heart of the issue:
“[B]y crafting registration policies and accreditation rules carefully, dotBrand owners can differentiate.”
“The brand owner can simply direct its affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, and Z as a component of the licensing agreement.”
Despite current industry practice, those suggestions could be interpreted by some as indirect discrimination by the registry, vis-à-vis its registration policies or licensing agreements, in conflict with Registry Agreement §2.9(a). Personally, I might suggest one compromise way forward would be for the Council to request a formal opinion from the ICANN legal department affirming the propriety of your suggested approaches in view of the Registry Agreement’s prohibitions against discrimination.
In addition, it behooves me to reiterate on list the formal IPC position on the matter, which I established during our last Council teleconference. The IPC supports the preferred registrar exemption for dot brand TLDs. It is consistent with existing policy work, which explicitly recognized that the non-discrimination requirement “has not always worked for very small, specialized gTLDs,” and that “the possible impact … is that they can be at the mercy of registrars form whom there is no good business reason to devote resources.” Added to that existing policy work are the recent and myriad public comments on Specification Thirteen espousing elements of trust, confidence, security and plain common sense appurtenant to this preferred registrar exemption.
Surely, there are caveats that can be established to assuage lingering concerns with respect to any slippery slope eroding non-discrimination principles in the larger, non-branded TLDs.
Thank you,
Brian
Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com / www.kattenlaw.com
Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:42:19 +0000 Accept-language: en-US Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx; In-reply-to: <535F6034.4040700@key-systems.net> List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thread-index: Ac9jLEUHNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAAV0EkAAA1rdoA= Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question It’s actually even simpler than that: the brand owner can simply direct its affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, and Z as a component of the licensing agreement.
J.
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at 3:17 To: "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Hi Brian,
I think you misunderstand. We do not assume a Single User-Single Registrant model in our statements. We are fuly aware that the Specification allows registrations also to affiliates and certain licensees. However, by crafting registration policies and accreditation rules carefully, dotBrand owners can differentiate. Just look at .WED for a registry almost no registrar is currently interested in carrying. Further, they can discriminate freely on the registrant level.
Therefore, on a purely outcome-oriented level, it is our opinion that everything that is intended to be achieved by this language can already be achieved under the current rules.
Finally, outcomes put aside, on a purely legalistic level, we are currently looking at contradicting languages. While Rec 19 recommends one thing, the proposed language sets out to create a loophole for just that thing Rec 19 seeks to prevent. This is inconsistency per definition, no matter how well-intentioned and worthwhile the intent is. To go beyond the language of Rec 19, additional policy work of some form is needed. As many constituencies have argued for a long time, the council does not have the role of deciding or setting aside policy on its own, it merely structures and channels the process.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
Am 28.04.2014 23:53, schrieb Winterfeldt, Brian J.: Dear James and Volker:
Please let me know if I understand correctly the RrSG position based your comments below:
· The proposed amendment to Specification 13 is inconsistent with policy recommendation 19 because no discrimination between registrars should be permitted;
· Dot Brands possess the sole ability to execute bulk transfers;
· Dot Brands, as registrants, are able to choose their own preferred registrars; and
· Dot Brands can implement registration policies and requirements to limit the services provided by registrars to only eligible registrants.
Forgive me if my encapsulation is wrong, but if I understand the RrSG position correctly, then I am concerned that it may gloss over some important nuances.
First, the RrSG position seems based on an assumption that dot Brand registries will be the sole registrant for bulk transfer and registrar selection purposes, whereas Specification Thirteen clearly permits Affiliates and Trademark Licensees to register names as well, thus complicating matters a bit. Second, the RrSG position seems to encourage dot brand registries to discriminate among registrars using registration policies, or perhaps other restrictions or side agreements among Affiliates and Trademark Licensees, at their own peril. Absent any assurances from ICANN legal regarding the propriety of these indirect work-around suggestions, I imagine that dot Brands would be much more comfortable with the direct and formal provision in the Registry Agreement that is presently under consideration by the Council. As I understand it, that is why the provision is necessary in the first place—so dot Brands cannot be alleged to violate the Registry Agreement in accrediting only one or two preferred corporate registrars.
I look forward to your responsive feedback.
Thank you,
Brian
Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 <image002.png>(202) 625-3562 FREE f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/>
Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
* To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> * Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000 * Accept-language: en-US * In-reply-to: <535E1AA3.6090807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>> * List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Thread-index: Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAJSGHAAAKWMf0oAGtHogAAH4hAAAAWYJ4AAWH6IgAAEVA2A * Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
________________________________
Just to add to Volker¹s comments:
Registrars have had a vigorous discussion on this topic, and provided
feedback from diverse viewpoints. But on the narrow question--whether
Spec 13 is compatible with Rec 19‹we generally believe it is not.
We recognize that dot-BRAND applicants and TLDs are a new part of the
domain name ecosystem, and will have unique interests not shared by other
TLDs. For example, we whole-heartedly agree with the proposed
restrictions in Spec 13 on ICANN¹s ability to re-delegate a string that
was formerly part of a dot-BRAND. However, we do not agree with the
assertion that these TLDs must be formally allowed to discriminate among
ICANN-accredited registrars.
In response to the concerns raised by proponents of Spec 13, about being
beholden to a single registrar/service provider, we would point out that,
as the Registry and Registrant, they would possess sole authority to
execute a bulk transfer to a new exclusive registrar/service provider
under existing ICANN policy. Additionally, to address concerns about
³trusted² vs. ³untrusted² registrar/service providers, we would note that,
as the Registrant, they would be able to choose the services of any
registrar (or group of registrars) of their choosing, without the need to
include this language in the Registry Agreement. In fact, this concern is
only legitimate in the scenario where the dot-BRAND TLD later extends
registrations to unaffiliated third parties.
In summary, Registrars do not believe that this component of Spec 13 is
compatible with Recommendation 19 of the original new gTLD policy, and
that while dot-Brand are likely to encounter concerns unique to their new
category of TLD, these issues can be addressed under existing policy.
Thanks‹
J.
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08
To: Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Dear council-members,
after extensive discussion of the question put before us, the RrSG has
likewise found this excemption to be inconsistent with both the language
as well as with the spirit of the recommendation.
The question we have been asked is not whether we like the proposed
exemption or can live with it, but rather a very simple one: Is the
proposed incorporation of an ability to restrict nondiscriminatory
registrar access to dotBrand TLDs is not consistent with
the intent and wording of Recommendation 19, or is it not. The
recommendation explicitly states that "Registries (...) may not
discriminate among (ICANN) accredited registrars". In other words, the
language of the Recommendation 19 contradicts the proposed
exemption.
Therefore, to find the additional language to be consistent with the
recommendation requires substantial arguments to that effect that would
allow such an interpretation. To find it consistent because one likes the
result or can live with the result does not
fulfill this requirement. For such cases where implementation would
conflict with existing policy, further policy work adjusting or confirming
the Policy Recommendation is required. The GNSO Council should take the
lead in initiating this policy work.
Beyond the grammatical inconsistency of the Recommendation, the intent of
the Recommendation also indicates inconsistency.
As detailed in the final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top
Level Domains, the recommendation was supported by all GNSO Constituencies
and Mrs Doria. According to the recollections of members of the new gTLD
policy committee at the time the Recommendation
was agreed upon, the concept of restricting registrar access was
discussed in the context of community TLDs, which are in many ways similar
to dotBrands. As registries have the ability under the Registry Agreement
to restrict registrar access to their TLDs
by establishing reasonable, nondiscriminatory accreditation criteria, it
was ultimately agreed that discrimintation between registrars should not
be permitted.
In fact, the only public comment with regard to this recommendation came
from the RyC, which was concerned that small, specialized registries may
not be able to find a registrar to carry them. Note that this concern
deals with a completely different problem.
This concern led to the Vertical Integration Working group and the
subsequent board decision allowing vertical integration. The idea of
allowing only a few registrars does not appear in the Final Report.
Finally, as registrants, dotBrands are perfectly free to discriminate
between registrars. The Recommendation only deals with registries. By
establishing certain registration requirements and policies, registries
can further eliminate the ability of registrars
to provide registry services beyond the eligible circle of registrants.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
Am 26.04.2014 16:54, schrieb Bret Fausett:
Feedback:
What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the
GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with
the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction
of New Generic Top-Level Domains.²
Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such
accredited registrars.²
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for
any exceptions for brands.
Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is
³inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation
19.²
Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for
.BRAND TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a
specialized type of TLD that was not being considered carefully when
Recommendation 19 was prepared. BUT, it is definitely
inconsistent with the policy recommendation we made in August, 2007.
Let¹s think about what this means.
--
Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 <image002.png>310-496-5755 FREE begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 <image002.png>310-496-5755 FREE FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 <image002.png>310-985-1351 FREE begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 <image002.png>310-985-1351 FREE FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jonathan,
I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information
to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the
deadline.
Thanks,
Thomas
Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Thanks Thomas,
You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59
UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion
on Monday.
Let¹s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you
have and retain flexibility to modify
(if necessary) as we receive further feedback.
Let¹s you and I talk on Monday.
Jonathan
From: Thomas
Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
All,
this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The
motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only
received one response from the registrars so far.
Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC),
Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and
Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP
to cover their respective groups and since
they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the
time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to
chime in and respond.
Thanks and kind regards,
Thomas
Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58
MESZ
An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All,
thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message.
I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared
in time.
Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the
list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups?
Certainly, one response per group is sufficient.
If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions,
please let me know.
The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers
will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the
NGPC for your review.
Thanks,
Thomas
Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
All,
Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it
seems to me that the way forward is to focus
as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every
attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner.
This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to
be submitted to the Council by 28 April
for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting.
We are being asked (full letter attached for reference) to
1. Š
advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional
provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy
Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains;
or
2. advise
ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including
an explanation as to why additional time is required.
I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups
/ constituencies is therefore:
Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of
GNSO Policy Recommendation 19?
It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as
possible along the following lines:
· No.
It is not inconsistent (Š with the letter and intent Š).
and
· Possibly,
an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent.
and
· Are
there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its
response to the NGPC?
OR
· Yes.
It is inconsistent ( Š with the letter and intent Š ).
and
· Possibly,
an explanation as to why it is inconsistent.
and
· Is
there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving
this issue and in what time frame?
Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the
above. The timing is
very tight.
We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e.
no, it is not inconsistent.
Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the
Council on or before 28 April) and an associated
letter to the NGPC.
Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel
with the consultation work.
Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets
done? Thomas?
I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of
providing a representative, timely and
effective response.
I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the
discussion to date. Please correct
me if I have.
Jonathan
--
Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 <image002.png>310-496-5755 FREE begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 <image002.png>310-496-5755 FREE FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 <image002.png>310-985-1351 FREE begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 <image002.png>310-985-1351 FREE FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <image002.png>+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 <image002.png>+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 FREE 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <image002.png>+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 <image002.png>+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 FREE 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it
is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of
this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this
e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
________________________________
* References: * Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html> * From: Volker Greimann
________________________________ <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16073.html> Chronological Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16074>
<<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16072.html> Thread Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16074> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html>
Call Send SMS Add to Skype You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
=========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <image002.png>+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <image002.png>+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Attachment: ATT00001.png Description: ATT00001.png
References: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question From: Volker Greimann <<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>
participants (2)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.