<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Dear All,</div><div><br></div><div>Please find below a response from Cyrus Namazi in relation to the paragraph referred to by Volker.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika</div><div><br></div><div><div><font face="Times"><i>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.</i></font></div><div><font face="Times"><i><br></i></font></div><div><font face="Times"><i><font>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.</font> </i></font></div></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Volker Greimann <<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net">vgreimann@key-Systems.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Monday 30 September 2013 19:03<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Glen de Saint Géry <<a href="mailto:Glen@icann.org">Glen@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear fellow councillors,<br><br>
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:<br><br><h1 class="western" style="widows: 8; page-break-after: auto" align="JUSTIFY"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">4.5.3</span></u></font></font><font size="3"><span style="font-weight: normal"></span></font><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u><span style="font-weight:
normal">If registry operators that indicated in their applications for their TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name (“</span></u></font></font><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u>Geo
TLDs</u></font></font><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">”)
<i>and representatives of the Intellectual Property Constituency</i> recommend to ICANN the creation of a registration program (...)<br></span></u></font></font></h1><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice 4.0.0 (Win32)"><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
H1.western { font-family: "Cambria"; font-size: 16pt }
H1.cjk { font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; font-size: 16pt }
H1.ctl { font-family: "Cambria"; font-size: 16pt }
--</style><br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time,
so referencing one in such a process description may cause problems
down the line.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
</pre>
</div></div>
-->
</span></body></html>