[council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Thu Feb 14 08:17:21 UTC 2013


For your information, this is the feedback I've received from Karen Lentz
with regard to the status of implementation of the TMCH:

The current status on the strawman model is that the comment period has
closed as of last week.  There was significant interest in these proposals
and we are reviewing the feedback to determine whether some/any/all parts of
the proposal should be implemented.

The Clearinghouse providers have been anticipating that the proposals can be
implemented if agreed, pending decision on the path forward.

Best regards,

Marika

On 13/02/13 12:46, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote:

> Marika,
> 
> Rather than working off of one statement Fadi made in Amsterdam and another
> statement he made in LA, can we get for tomorrow's meeting of the Council a
> definitive statement from ICANN as to where the "Strawman" actually is, what
> are the next proposed steps, and frankly where we are with the full
> implementation.  I note that we are pretty much half way through this month
> and the final statement of work with the providers of the Clearinghouse is
> still expected to be completed this month (according to the latest webinar in
> which icann indicated they are on target for completing this in February).
> That being the case, logic would dictate that if icann is indeed on schedule,
> then the final solution must already be known.  Therefore, before we engage in
> a seemingly endless discussion hypothesizing about statements made in
> different parts of the world, perhaps we can get a definitive statement
> directly from the source.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> 
> Sent from iPad.  Please excuse any typos.
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:27 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz; john at crediblecontext.com
> Cc: Mason Cole; council at gnso.icann.org List
> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from
> council
> 
> All, it may be worth noting that Fadi in his meeting with the NCPH in LA
> further clarified the comments made in Amsterdam as follows:
> 
> 
> One is to clarify a comment I made in Amsterdam on Friday - after Davos I
> stopped in Amsterdam and the press and some other people carried my comment
> and extrapolated it in ways that were not true. So I don't have time to go fix
> it with the public but you are who matters so I'm just going to explain it. I
> did say publicly that I believed the way the trademark clearinghouse
> activities happened, I have made a mistake. And people construed that to mean
> I felt the whole thing was a mistake and we shouldn't of done it and, you
> know, this - let me clarify. I think as I have told you and I told some of you
> in person, I'm new to this process, (understand) that I'm new to this process
> and that I have learned - a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. It
> will be awhile before I fully appreciate the world I'm in now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as such, what I explained is that the way I went about solving what I
> thought was an issue in Toronto and I needed to do something about it and I
> still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that
> you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I
> think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it. The
> mistake I did is that I did not fully appreciate the process and understand
> how the process should work. And some people got very upset with me and I have
> now a complaint with the (best) person who's spending two hours with me this
> afternoon with the complainant to discuss with and that's fine. That's the
> process and I respect it deeply and I'll be there for it but I am not at all
> saying and will not say and in fact I'm in vehement agreement with many of you
> in this room that we do have some issues and they have to be solved. If we are
> a responsible industry we have to face these issues and deal with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I made a mistake (in how) that's fine, I'll fix that and get on with how,
> but I am not shying away from the importance of the matters you brought to my
> attention and that I still believe need to be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (see 
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/39421288/transcript+CSG+-+CEO
> +29+Jan+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1359562587000).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marika
> 
> 
> From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>
> Date: Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:25
> To: "john at crediblecontext.com" <john at crediblecontext.com>
> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole at 5x5com.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org List"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from
> council
> 
> 
> I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he
> has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a
> second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the
> strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark
> holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as
> is.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top?
> 
> Berard
> 
> 
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from
> council
> From: Mason Cole <mcole at 5x5com.com>
> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Council colleagues --
> As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman
> proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new
> gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply.
> The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group
> within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because
> this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful
> suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to
> discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and
> IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it
> to the council.
> Thanks --
> Mason
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130214/b768c5f7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130214/b768c5f7/smime.p7s>


More information about the council mailing list