[council] BRG FAQ Specification 13 - GNSO Council Discussion 10 Apr.

Wed Apr 9 14:02:40 UTC 2014

Thanks Maria, Amr & Volker,

A reminder of my previous post as to the timetable that I believe we need to
try to work to as follows:

1.       28 March 2014 - Publication date of minutes of NGPC

a.       Refers the issue to the GNSO Council and  

b.      Sets clock to start regarding 45 days

2.       10 April 2014 - GNSO Council Meeting

a.       Become as well-briefed as possible and 

b.      Ask initial questions / have the discussion to clarify the position

3.       10 April to 8 May 2014 - Inter-meeting period

a.       Provides for any supplementary information gathering and 

b.      Discussion / further discussion in groups / constituencies and 

c.       Discussion on council list and (to work within the 45 days) 

d.      Drafting of a response 

4.       28 April 2014 - Motion deadline for next GNSO meeting

5.       8 May 2014 - GNSO Meeting

a.       Opportunity to conclude a position in time to meet 45 day deadline
or

b.      Agree to request an extension

6.       12 May 2014 - 45 day deadline

 Recognising that by our 10 April meeting, you may not yet have had time to
become fully informed or consult within your groups, I suggest we focus that
discussion on establishing the background and facts.

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 April 2014 14:55
To: Amr Elsadr
Cc: Volker Greimann; Jonathan Robinson; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] BRG FAQ Specification 13 - GNSO Council Discussion 10
Apr.

Hi all,

I've got no particular axe to grind either on this issue - just an awareness
it's something I don't have much substantive knowledge about. So I think I'm
in a similar position to Amr in wanting to be well informed, but that my
interest doesn't make any presumptions about what the Council's role might
be. 

In any case, I'm happy to be available for a longer call tomorrow. 

Many thanks, Maria

On 9 April 2014 14:42, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi Volker,

Yes., of course. It is the GNSO and anyone willing to participate in its
process (not the Council) who tackle policy issues. But for those of us who
weren't around in 2007, understanding the policy context involved in this
topic is helpful in determining (beyond any doubt) what process is the most
suitable to follow. I know I'm picking up new stuff as I go along almost on
a daily basis!! :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 9, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
wrote:

Hi Amr,

the topic on the call tomorrow is intended to define the process by which
the GNSO (not the council) should tackle this issue. We therefore should not
go into the subject matter too deep. The debate of the subject itself should
be reserved to the next proper meeting, when all constituencies had a chance
to frame this issue and form an opinion. Even then, our options may be
limited by the policy tools at our disposal.

Volker

Thanks Amr,

You raise a few good points, not least of which is the time available to
achieve what we ideally need to tomorrow.

I am conscious that this meeting was not on our original schedule and has
evolved recently.

What I'd like to do is work with an "up to" 90 minute slot for the meeting.
It is currently shoe-horned into 60 minutes but I am conscious that this may
not be enough.

Accordingly, could all councillors please be prepared to be available for 60
minutes minimum and up to 90 minutes if necessary.

Jonathan

From: Amr Elsadr [ <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org> mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] 
Sent: 09 April 2014 13:53
To:  <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info> jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc:  <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] BRG FAQ Specification 13 - GNSO Council Discussion 10
Apr.

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks. It seems reasonable to have Martin Sutton available on tomorrow's
call. I have been trying to catch up on this issue and prepare to be as
informed as possible before our discussion tomorrow. We will only have 20
minutes for this purpose on tomorrow's call as per the posted meeting
agenda, so I have doubts about how informed we will be at the meeting's end.

We will however have time to explore this issue further following the call,
and I would like to second the idea Thomas suggested on another thread of
reaching out to some of the original WG members to get some insight on the
context of the original WG recommendation and discussions leading up to
them. Although it seems the .Brand registries model was not taken into
consideration at the time, a briefing by the WG members may help us reach a
decision on how to proceed with our response to the board.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 9, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Robinson <
<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info> jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

All,

Please see the note below (and associate attachment) from Martin Sutton.

In the interests of achieving our objective tomorrow i.e. being as fully
informed as possible, I propose to take him up on his offer of being
available to answer questions.

Thanks,

Jonathan

From:  <mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com> martinsutton at hsbc.com [
<mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com> mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com] 
Sent: 09 April 2014 10:38
To: Jonathan Robinson
Subject: BRG FAQ Specification 13 - GNSO Council Discussion 10 Apr.

Dear Jonathan, 

I note that the next GNSO Council meeting is scheduled for 10 April and
includes a discussion item for Specification 13 and the proposed
incorporation of an additional clause, which the NGPC has referred to GNSO. 

In order to support these discussions, the Brand Registry Group (BRG) has
prepared the following set of FAQs that I trust will assist the GNSO
Council's deliberations: 

Furthermore, I would be glad to make myself available to join the the
telephone meeting on 10 April to answer any resulting or related questions.
If this would be helpful, please advise me of the time and contact
information. 

Finally, you may have already seen that ICANN has recently posted the
correspondence from Gretchen Olive, CSC, which was sent through on the
morning of the NGPC meeting in Singapore.  The correspondence includes
letters from 48 .brand applicants, arranged in just a couple of days, urging
ICANN to reinstate the exclusive registrar provision.  Considering most of
these companies are not BRG members and would have had to jump considerable
hoops in order to issue public statements of this nature, I think it is
useful for the GNSO Council to bear in mind when considering their response
to spec 13 - there is a much broader impact than just the BRG.  A copy of
the correspondence can be found here -
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/olive-to-crocker-et-al-26mar14-
en.pdf>
http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/olive-to-crocker-et-al-26mar14-e
n.pdf. 

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Kind regards,

Martin Sutton 
President, Brand Registry Group 

Martin C SUTTON 
Manager, Group Fraud Risk & Intelligence 
Global Security & Fraud Risk
Level 8,1 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5AB,United Kingdom

__________________________________________________________________

Phone

+44 (0)207 991 8074 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29207%20991%208074> 

Mobile

+44 (0)777 4556680 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29777%204556680> 

Email

 <mailto:martinsutton at hsbc.com> martinsutton at hsbc.com

Website

 <http://www.hsbc.com/> www.hsbc.com

__________________________________________________________________ 
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!

************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************

************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************
----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU
PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If
you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any
part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and
all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or
omissions.

<BRG FAQ Spec 13 registrar.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140409/fbfa5498/attachment.html>