Maggie (and drafting team) Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the initial ISPCP input. Tony From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27 To: ispcp@icann.org; Tony Holmes Subject: IRT statement Importance: High Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group. Please review and provide your comments to the list. Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. * URS must be mandatory. Staff's belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors. * The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. Please copy the list on your response, if any. Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th. Thanks, M.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 3-7 D - 64295 Darmstadt +49 2244 873999 (Tel.) +49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) http://www.telekom.com <http://www.telekom.com/> Deutsche Telekom AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender) Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender) Hamid Akhavan, Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376 Maggie, I didn't receive the draft. Could you please forward it to this E-Mail address? Thanks _____ Von: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tony Holmes Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 01:59 An: 'Mansourkia, Magnolia'; ispcp@icann.org Betreff: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement Maggie (and drafting team) Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the initial ISPCP input. Tony From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27 To: ispcp@icann.org; Tony Holmes Subject: IRT statement Importance: High Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group. Please review and provide your comments to the list. Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. * URS must be mandatory. Staff's belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors. * The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. Please copy the list on your response, if any. Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th. Thanks, M.
Maggie, I've just seen your text attached. I'm fully fine with this. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tony Holmes Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 01:59 An: 'Mansourkia, Magnolia'; ispcp@icann.org Betreff: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement Maggie (and drafting team) Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the initial ISPCP input. Tony From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27 To: ispcp@icann.org; Tony Holmes Subject: IRT statement Importance: High Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group. Please review and provide your comments to the list. Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. * URS must be mandatory. Staff's belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors. * The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. Please copy the list on your response, if any. Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th. Thanks, M.
I didn't receive the original e-mail from Maggie. I'm OK with the content, but I expressed then and repeat here I'm not so sure about our first paragraph on the Clearing House. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. Although I agree that ICANN should have complete rights for overseeing and should have the power to influence its operations, I have doubts if there's not an arrangement that could reduce the extent of the liabilities on ICANN. My reasoning is that although the Clearing House is fundamental to expedite the process of registration (which pertains to ICANN) it will be dealing in essence with the subject of intellectual property, which is not the fundamental concern of ICANN and for which there are other more apt institutions. Jaime Wagner ISPs Representative CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Commitee) jaime <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> +55(51)8126-0916 jaime@corp.plugin.com.br +55(51)3123-1701 From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes Sent: quarta-feira, 28 de outubro de 2009 21:59 To: 'Mansourkia, Magnolia'; ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement Maggie (and drafting team) Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the initial ISPCP input. Tony From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27 To: ispcp@icann.org; Tony Holmes Subject: IRT statement Importance: High Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group. Please review and provide your comments to the list. Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. * URS must be mandatory. Staff's belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors. * The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. Please copy the list on your response, if any. Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th. Thanks, M.
Jaime I fully understand your point, but I fear that if ICANN don't stand up to this task the proposed approach will not get the buy-in from some parties. There would be a lot of nervousness about handing this off. On that basis I'd prefer to stick with the text s drafted, (I also believe this has already been submitted?) Regards Tony From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jaime Wagner Sent: 31 October 2009 05:53 To: 'Tony Holmes'; 'Mansourkia, Magnolia'; ispcp@icann.org Subject: RE: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement I didn't receive the original e-mail from Maggie. I'm OK with the content, but I expressed then and repeat here I'm not so sure about our first paragraph on the Clearing House. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. Although I agree that ICANN should have complete rights for overseeing and should have the power to influence its operations, I have doubts if there's not an arrangement that could reduce the extent of the liabilities on ICANN. My reasoning is that although the Clearing House is fundamental to expedite the process of registration (which pertains to ICANN) it will be dealing in essence with the subject of intellectual property, which is not the fundamental concern of ICANN and for which there are other more apt institutions. Jaime Wagner ISPs Representative CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Commitee) jaime <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> +55(51)8126-0916 jaime@corp.plugin.com.br +55(51)3123-1701 From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes Sent: quarta-feira, 28 de outubro de 2009 21:59 To: 'Mansourkia, Magnolia'; ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement Maggie (and drafting team) Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the initial ISPCP input. Tony From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27 To: ispcp@icann.org; Tony Holmes Subject: IRT statement Importance: High Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group. Please review and provide your comments to the list. Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. * URS must be mandatory. Staff's belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors. * The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. Please copy the list on your response, if any. Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th. Thanks, M.
participants (3)
-
Jaime Wagner -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Tony Holmes