<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Maria,<br>
<br>
I just read a very good summary from a potential applicants'
perspective:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121129_new_gtlds_last_minute_end_arounds_and_fundamental_fairness/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121129_new_gtlds_last_minute_end_arounds_and_fundamental_fairness/</a><br>
<br>
Jon does a really good job pointing out how the current proposals
contradict previous GNSO, Board and other community decisions and
go against previously agreed upon compromise positions. I really
recommend this read for all councillors that may not know the full
background of the prior discussions on these issues. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC7qwdDFQHq+wPN1MFrVT-71jRBpS71pmsBNeNgDV6KYa-iZbw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Volker,<br>
<br>
Thank you very much. I share many of your concerns, particularly
regarding this 'extra-judicial' process'; its secrecy and its
imbalance. <br>
<br>
I would very much like to have clarity on what the role of the
GNSO Council, and the GNSO more broadly, should now be. <br>
<br>
While I wish to be as constructive as possible regarding the
substance of any new proposals formally presented to the GNSO, I
do not wish for the GNSO to be asked to rubber-stamp the outcomes
of a flawed process. <br>
<br>
I look forward to learning more about these proposals, including
the publication of - at a minimum - who was involved in drawing
them up, and what process was invoked to ensure transparency,
participation and balance. <br>
<br>
All the best, Maria<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 28 November 2012 18:24, Volker
Greimann <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Dear fellow councillors,<br>
<br>
frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the
latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and
significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon
compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at
the last minute and more significantly, outside the
established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will
only serve to open the floodgates for any community or
stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed
process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the
community had already agreed upon.<br>
<br>
We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting
involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making
decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council
now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman
and what implications it would have on future policy
development.<br>
<br>
While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of
our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed
information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the
conclusion that most of these positions are implementation
issues rather than policy. However, even if it were
implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these
suggestions should be implemented without proper process and
especially if the majority of the community is in
disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should.<br>
<br>
These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the
GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public
forum:<br>
<br>
"Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The
Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency
reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights
protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the
GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these
suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak,
WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME
UP"<br>
<br>
From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by
the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made
themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem
accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is
now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our
opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I
will make the first move:<br>
<br>
-Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the
straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper
on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of
totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of
this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account
other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period
whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention
however is made of other legitimate potential registrants
whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the
sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include
people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not
participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer
trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or
companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only
TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise
would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of
money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not
good policy.<br>
<br>
-Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service
except for a very small part of the community for which there
is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise
legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process
and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs
will initially have a very small market such restrictions will
decrease the customer base even further.<br>
Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary"
seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the
proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for
registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for
whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole
beneficiaries.<br>
This proposal also does not take into account in any way how
the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be
adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day
temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is
simpler than a system that will have many more commands
running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1
year).<br>
Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to
build these systems at their own cost and risk with no
guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders
could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite
financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a
potential burden resulting from the presumed need for
protection against infringing registrations.<br>
<br>
-Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above
issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals
will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also
have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always
flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully
overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP
decisions seems like an overreach (again).<br>
<br>
-Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC
and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is
the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation,
and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM
standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single
interest group to the detriment of all others.<br>
<br>
Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to
protect their rights against infringements but the proposed
measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to
infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of
course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from
implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy,
I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which
these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to
a large degree - their content.<br>
<br>
Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be
discussed on our level and given the limited time on our
schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of
the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this
paper.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Volker Greimann<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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.
</pre>
</body>
</html>