Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Hello All, Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future. I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants. This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_con... I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago. Best regards, Michael From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM To: avri@acm.org; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Avri, GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts... This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors; Agree 2. Create for community based applications some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so. For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents. For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense. While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons: * For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture) * Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner. 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world . Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies…. There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example: * Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”). * An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply) 4. Clear rules against filibustering Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat. At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them. Agree 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… Agree 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ? Absolutely SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators; B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish. If the scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on; C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door. D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers… I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection <http://www.avast.com/> Antivirus avast! est active.
Michael Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one application each? Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply circumvented Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media releases & coverage http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri@acm.org; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Hello All, Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future. I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants. This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_con... I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago. Best regards, Michael From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Avri, GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts... This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors; Agree 2. Create for community based applications some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so. For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents. For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense. While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons: · For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture) · Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner. 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world . Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies…. There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example: · Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”). · An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply) 4. Clear rules against filibustering Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat. At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them. Agree 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… Agree 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ? Absolutely SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators; B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish. If the scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on; C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door. D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers… I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.
Instead of capping the number of applications any entity can make, it might be helpful to ensure a system to resolve contention sets in a different manner than in the current round. A continuation of the current auction model might lead to gaming as well, where parties with no interest in running a TLD could feel encouraged to take a chance at the post-private-auction payout. In any case, a cap on applications by any one entity is easily circumventable by creating holding companies for each application. Volker Am 07.04.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Michael
Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one application each?
Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply circumvented
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media releases & coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael D. Palage *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM *To:* 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri@acm.org; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Hello All,
Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future.
I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants.
This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_con... I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM *To:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Avri,
GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND
1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts...
This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors;
Agree
2. Create for community based applicationssome simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so.
For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents.
For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense.
While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons:
·For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture)
·Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner.
3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world .
Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies….
There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination
If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example:
·Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”).
·An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply)
4. Clear rules against filibustering
Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat.
At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them.
Agree
5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute
Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches…
Agree
6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN
Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ?
Absolutely
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE
A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators;
B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish.
If the scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on;
C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door.
D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it
E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants
F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers…
I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image removed by sender. <http://www.avast.com/>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/>est active.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-- 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.
Hi All, According to me, capping the number of applications should limit drastically speculation on TLDs. Of course, it is technically feasible to create holding companies to avoid this limitation but imagine that a new rule X would be: If it is possible to prove that: too many(*) applications are related to the same entity through subsidiaries or similar companies, then the applications are rejected with no refund. *Based on the capping factor (example 20) I am not sure that a lot of “intrepide” would be ready to gamble with such large amounts of money as domain names big actors are all well known. Another possibility could be to apply the limitation after the applications phase. When all applications are known and when contention sets are defined. A rule could say that considering the contention sets only, an entity should choose to keep only a limited number of applications (new rule X applicable also) . Example: ZOOZLE applies for 30 TLDs After definition of contention sets, 25 TLDs applications are in contention sets ð ZOOZLE should cancel (for instance) 20 applications (not keeping more than 5 TLDs or limit to 20% of nb in contention or …) Anyway, in the current round, big players and speculators have too much influence on the rules and impact public interest in a negative way… This has to be addressed one way or another. Regards Alain Alain ARTERO TLDs project manager .radio EBU OPERATING EUROVISION AND EURORADIO EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION L’Ancienne-Route 17A 1218 Le Grand-Saconnex Geneva, Switzerland T +41(0)22 717 21 58 www.eurovision.com<http://www.eurovision.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: jeudi 9 avril 2015 16:11 To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Instead of capping the number of applications any entity can make, it might be helpful to ensure a system to resolve contention sets in a different manner than in the current round. A continuation of the current auction model might lead to gaming as well, where parties with no interest in running a TLD could feel encouraged to take a chance at the post-private-auction payout. In any case, a cap on applications by any one entity is easily circumventable by creating holding companies for each application. Volker Am 07.04.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Michael Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one application each? Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply circumvented Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media releases & coverage http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Hello All, Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future. I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants. This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_con... I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago. Best regards, Michael From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Avri, GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts... This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors; Agree 2. Create for community based applications some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so. For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents. For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense. While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons: · For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture) · Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner. 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world . Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies…. There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example: · Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”). · An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply) 4. Clear rules against filibustering Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat. At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them. Agree 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… Agree 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ? Absolutely SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators; B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish. If the scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on; C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door. D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers… I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************
Hi Alain, I fear I agree that this would probably be seen as anti-competitive as it would exclude those applicants looking to spread the risk and cost over as many TLDs as possible. Maybe a merit-based grading system of contested applications would actually solve this problem much better as large protfolio applicants would face a disadvantage in crafting individual and tailored registration policies and applications as opposed to boutique applicants. Best, Volker
Anyway, in the current round, big players and speculators have too much influence on the rules and impact public interest in a negative way… This has to be addressed one way or another.
Actually, this conclusion would have to be proven. While many view certain issues as detrimental (as do I), there may not be an actual harm outweighing potential benefits. I would hesitate to assign judgement on any potential issue at this time. That would follow in the later review and analysis.
Regards
Alain
*Alain ARTERO* TLDs project manager .radio
*EBU * OPERATING EUROVISION AND EURORADIO
*EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION *L’Ancienne-Route 17A 1218 Le Grand-Saconnex Geneva, Switzerland
T +41(0)22 717 21 58 www.eurovision.com <http://www.eurovision.com/>
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* jeudi 9 avril 2015 16:11 *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Instead of capping the number of applications any entity can make, it might be helpful to ensure a system to resolve contention sets in a different manner than in the current round. A continuation of the current auction model might lead to gaming as well, where parties with no interest in running a TLD could feel encouraged to take a chance at the post-private-auction payout.
In any case, a cap on applications by any one entity is easily circumventable by creating holding companies for each application.
Volker
Am 07.04.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Michael
Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one application each?
Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply circumvented
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media releases & coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael D. Palage *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM *To:* 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Hello All,
Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future.
I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants.
This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_con... I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM *To:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Avri,
GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND
1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts...
This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors;
Agree
2. Create for community based applications some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so.
For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents.
For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense.
While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons:
·For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture)
·Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner.
3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world .
Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies….
There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination
If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example:
·Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”).
·An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply)
4. Clear rules against filibustering
Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat.
At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them.
Agree
5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute
Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches…
Agree
6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN
Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ?
Absolutely
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE
A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators;
B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish.
If the scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on;
C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door.
D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it
E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants
F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers…
I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image removed by sender. <http://www.avast.com/>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/>est active.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-- 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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** *
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (4)
-
Artero, Alain -
Michael D. Palage -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Volker Greimann