Hi Marika, thank you for that clarification. While this relieves part of my concern, I still feel that "baking" a single constituency into such a process and handing out special benefits is not the proper procedure for a multi-stakeholder organization, even if it is an opt-in process for the applicant. Best, Volker

Dear All,

Please find below a response from Cyrus Namazi in relation to the paragraph referred to by Volker.

Best regards,

Marika

/In response to community input, the TMCH Requirements were revised to allow registry operators the ability to submit applications to conduct launch programs. In response to the large number of Geo TLDs who voiced similar concerns, the IPC publicly stated that it would be willing to work with Geo TLDs to develop mutually acceptable language for Geo TLD launch programs. We viewed this proposal as a way for community members to work collectively to propose to ICANN a possible solution for an issue specifically affecting intellectual property rights-holders and Geo TLDs. Any such proposal will be subject to ICANN's review and ICANN has expressly stated that any such proposal may be subject to public comment in which other interested community members may participate. This is captured in Section 4.5.3./ / / /As an alternative, applicants can unilaterally apply for a program exemption under another provision of the requirements (Section 4.5.2). IPC was added to facilitate the discussion; not a condition to that requirement. /

From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>> Date: Monday 30 September 2013 19:03 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

Dear fellow councillors,

in the last week ICANN has released a final draft version of the TMCH RPM Requirements, which contains in section 4.5.3 a paragraph that I find to be questionable:

_4.5.3__If registry operators that indicated in their applications for their TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name ("__Geo TLDs__") /and representatives of the Intellectual Property Constituency/ recommend to ICANN the creation of a registration program (...) _

Apparently, ICANN staff is considering to give one constituency special consideration. While the subject at hand is probably closest to the specific interests of that one constituency, giving any one constituency or any part thereof an effective veto over a subject matter that still has relevance to the other constituencies and stakeholder groups is highly problematic and contrary to the spirit of the multi-stakeholder principle. ICANN staff should consider all stakeholders equally and not cater to a single stakeholder group. It would be different if such a recommendation came from the GNSO council itself.

Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time, so referencing one in such a process description may cause problems down the line.

I feel this topic needs to be raised on the council level as this is only the most recent example of ICANN staff acting unilaterally in favoring one interest over others. --

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.

Thanks, I share Volker's concerns. On 10/01/2013 06:16 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

All,

We have a full agenda developing for the 10 October 2013.

It will be helpful to have other comments on this along the lines of:

1. Is this an issue for the Council?

Yes

2. If so:

a. Do you have similarly felt or related / connected concerns?

Yes

b. Is this a unusual / unique / a precedent?

c. What should the Council be doing about it?

The draft should treat all constituencies equally -- all should be given the same level of reference and communications support. --Wendy

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net] Sent: 01 October 2013 09:33 To: Marika Konings Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

Hi Marika,

thank you for that clarification. While this relieves part of my concern, I still feel that "baking" a single constituency into such a process and handing out special benefits is not the proper procedure for a multi-stakeholder organization, even if it is an opt-in process for the applicant.

Best,

Volker

Dear All,

Please find below a response from Cyrus Namazi in relation to the paragraph referred to by Volker.

Best regards,

Marika

In response to community input, the TMCH Requirements were revised to allow registry operators the ability to submit applications to conduct launch programs. In response to the large number of Geo TLDs who voiced similar concerns, the IPC publicly stated that it would be willing to work with Geo TLDs to develop mutually acceptable language for Geo TLD launch programs. We viewed this proposal as a way for community members to work collectively to propose to ICANN a possible solution for an issue specifically affecting intellectual property rights-holders and Geo TLDs. Any such proposal will be subject to ICANN's review and ICANN has expressly stated that any such proposal may be subject to public comment in which other interested community members may participate. This is captured in Section 4.5.3.

As an alternative, applicants can unilaterally apply for a program exemption under another provision of the requirements (Section 4.5.2). IPC was added to facilitate the discussion; not a condition to that requirement.

From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: Monday 30 September 2013 19:03 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

Dear fellow councillors,

in the last week ICANN has released a final draft version of the TMCH RPM Requirements, which contains in section 4.5.3 a paragraph that I find to be questionable:

4.5.3If registry operators that indicated in their applications for their TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name (“Geo TLDs”) and representatives of the Intellectual Property Constituency recommend to ICANN the creation of a registration program (...)

Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time, so referencing one in such a process description may cause problems down the line.

I feel this topic needs to be raised on the council level as this is only the most recent example of ICANN staff acting unilaterally in favoring one interest over others.

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/