[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-Systems.net
Tue Apr 29 08:17:56 UTC 2014
Hi Brian,
I think you misunderstand. We do not assume a Single User-Single
Registrant model in our statements. We are fuly aware that the
Specification allows registrations also to affiliates and certain
licensees. However, by crafting registration policies and accreditation
rules carefully, dotBrand owners can differentiate. Just look at .WED
for a registry almost no registrar is currently interested in carrying.
Further, they can discriminate freely on the registrant level.
Therefore, on a purely outcome-oriented level, it is our opinion that
everything that is intended to be achieved by this language can already
be achieved under the current rules.
Finally, outcomes put aside, on a purely legalistic level, we are
currently looking at contradicting languages. While Rec 19 recommends
one thing, the proposed language sets out to create a loophole for just
that thing Rec 19 seeks to prevent. This is inconsistency per
definition, no matter how well-intentioned and worthwhile the intent is.
To go beyond the language of Rec 19, additional policy work of some form
is needed. As many constituencies have argued for a long time, the
council does not have the role of deciding or setting aside policy on
its own, it merely structures and channels the process.
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
Am 28.04.2014 23:53, schrieb Winterfeldt, Brian J.:
>
> Dear James and Volker:
>
> Please let me know if I understand correctly the RrSG position based
> your comments below:
>
> ·The proposed amendment to Specification 13 is inconsistent with
> policy recommendation 19 because no discrimination between registrars
> should be permitted;
>
> ·Dot Brands possess the sole ability to execute bulk transfers;
>
> ·Dot Brands, as registrants, are able to choose their own preferred
> registrars; and
>
> ·Dot Brands can implement registration policies and requirements to
> limit the services provided by registrars to only eligible registrants.
>
> Forgive me if my encapsulation is wrong, but if I understand the RrSG
> position correctly, then I am concerned that it may gloss over some
> important nuances.
>
> First, the RrSG position seems based on an assumption that dot Brand
> registries will be the sole registrant for bulk transfer and registrar
> selection purposes, whereas Specification Thirteen clearly permits
> Affiliates and Trademark Licensees to register names as well, thus
> complicating matters a bit. Second, the RrSG position seems to
> encourage dot brand registries to discriminate among registrars using
> registration policies, or perhaps other restrictions or side
> agreements amongAffiliates and Trademark Licensees, at their own
> peril. Absent any assurances from ICANN legal regarding the propriety
> of these indirect work-around suggestions, I imagine that dot Brands
> would be much more comfortable with the direct and /formal/ provision
> in the Registry Agreement that is presently under consideration by the
> Council. As I understand it, that is why the provision is necessary
> in the first place—so dot Brands cannot be alleged to violate the
> Registry Agreement in accrediting only one or two preferred corporate
> registrars.
>
> I look forward to your responsive feedback.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian
>
> *Brian J. Winterfeldt
> *Head of Internet Practice
> *Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
> *2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
> p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244
> brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com
> <mailto:brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>/ www.kattenlaw.com
> <http://www.kattenlaw.com/>
>
>
> Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>
> * /To/: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett
> <bret at xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> * /Subject/: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13
> question
> * /From/: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at xxxxxxxxxxx>
> * /Date/: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000
> * /Accept-language/: en-US
> * /In-reply-to/: <535E1AA3.6090807 at key-systems.net
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>>
> * /List-id/: council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> * /Sender/: owner-council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> * /Thread-index/:
> Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAJSGHAAAKWMf0oAGtHogAAH4hAAAAWYJ4AAWH6IgAAEVA2A
>
> * /Thread-topic/: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13
> question
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just to add to Volker¹s comments:
>
> Registrars have had a vigorous discussion on this topic, and provided
> feedback from diverse viewpoints. But on the narrow question--whether
> Spec 13 is compatible with Rec 19‹we generally believe it is not.
>
> We recognize that dot-BRAND applicants and TLDs are a new part of the
> domain name ecosystem, and will have unique interests not shared by other
> TLDs. For example, we whole-heartedly agree with the proposed
> restrictions in Spec 13 on ICANN¹s ability to re-delegate a string that
> was formerly part of a dot-BRAND. However, we do not agree with the
> assertion that these TLDs must be formally allowed to discriminate among
> ICANN-accredited registrars.
>
> In response to the concerns raised by proponents of Spec 13, about being
> beholden to a single registrar/service provider, we would point out that,
> as the Registry and Registrant, they would possess sole authority to
> execute a bulk transfer to a new exclusive registrar/service provider
> under existing ICANN policy. Additionally, to address concerns about
> ³trusted² vs. ³untrusted² registrar/service providers, we would note that,
> as the Registrant, they would be able to choose the services of any
> registrar (or group of registrars) of their choosing, without the need to
> include this language in the Registry Agreement. In fact, this concern is
> only legitimate in the scenario where the dot-BRAND TLD later extends
> registrations to unaffiliated third parties.
>
> In summary, Registrars do not believe that this component of Spec 13 is
> compatible with Recommendation 19 of the original new gTLD policy, and
> that while dot-Brand are likely to encounter concerns unique to their new
> category of TLD, these issues can be addressed under existing policy.
>
>
> Thanks‹
>
> J.
>
>
> From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08
> To: Bret Fausett <bret at xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List
> <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>
>
> Dear council-members,
>
> after extensive discussion of the question put before us, the RrSG has
> likewise found this excemption to be inconsistent with both the language
> as well as with the spirit of the recommendation.
>
> The question we have been asked is not whether we like the proposed
> exemption or can live with it, but rather a very simple one: Is the
> proposed incorporation of an ability to restrict nondiscriminatory
> registrar access to dotBrand TLDs is not consistent with
> the intent and wording of Recommendation 19, or is it not. The
> recommendation explicitly states that "Registries (...) may not
> discriminate among (ICANN) accredited registrars". In other words, the
> language of the Recommendation 19 contradicts the proposed
> exemption.
>
> Therefore, to find the additional language to be consistent with the
> recommendation requires substantial arguments to that effect that would
> allow such an interpretation. To find it consistent because one likes the
> result or can live with the result does not
> fulfill this requirement. For such cases where implementation would
> conflict with existing policy, further policy work adjusting or confirming
> the Policy Recommendation is required. The GNSO Council should take the
> lead in initiating this policy work.
>
> Beyond the grammatical inconsistency of the Recommendation, the intent of
> the Recommendation also indicates inconsistency.
>
> As detailed in the final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top
> Level Domains, the recommendation was supported by all GNSO Constituencies
> and Mrs Doria. According to the recollections of members of the new gTLD
> policy committee at the time the Recommendation
> was agreed upon, the concept of restricting registrar access was
> discussed in the context of community TLDs, which are in many ways similar
> to dotBrands. As registries have the ability under the Registry Agreement
> to restrict registrar access to their TLDs
> by establishing reasonable, nondiscriminatory accreditation criteria, it
> was ultimately agreed that discrimintation between registrars should not
> be permitted.
>
> In fact, the only public comment with regard to this recommendation came
> from the RyC, which was concerned that small, specialized registries may
> not be able to find a registrar to carry them. Note that this concern
> deals with a completely different problem.
> This concern led to the Vertical Integration Working group and the
> subsequent board decision allowing vertical integration. The idea of
> allowing only a few registrars does not appear in the Final Report.
>
> Finally, as registrants, dotBrands are perfectly free to discriminate
> between registrars. The Recommendation only deals with registries. By
> establishing certain registration requirements and policies, registries
> can further eliminate the ability of registrars
> to provide registry services beyond the eligible circle of registrants.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker Greimann
>
> Am 26.04.2014 16:54, schrieb Bret Fausett:
>
>
> Feedback:
>
> What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the
> GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with
> the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction
> of New Generic Top-Level Domains.²
>
> Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
> registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such
> accredited registrars.²
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
> The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for
> any exceptions for brands.
>
> Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is
> ³inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation
> 19.²
>
> Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for
> .BRAND TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a
> specialized type of TLD that was not being considered carefully when
> Recommendation 19 was prepared. BUT, it is definitely
> inconsistent with the policy recommendation we made in August, 2007.
>
> Let¹s think about what this means.
>
> --
> Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
> 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) €310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert at xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan,
> I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information
> to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the
> deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> Thanks Thomas,
>
> You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59
> UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion
> on Monday.
>
> Let¹s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you
> have and retain flexibility to modify
> (if necessary) as we receive further feedback.
>
> Let¹s you and I talk on Monday.
>
> Jonathan
>
> From: Thomas
> Rickert [mailto:rickert at xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>
>
>
> All,
> this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The
> motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only
> received one response from the registrars so far.
>
>
>
> Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC),
> Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and
> Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP
> to cover their respective groups and since
> they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the
> time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to
> chime in and respond.
>
>
>
> Thanks and kind regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
>
>
> Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert at xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>
> Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58
> MESZ
>
> An: jrobinson at xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Kopie: GNSO Council List <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> All,
> thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message.
>
>
>
> I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared
> in time.
>
>
>
> Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the
> list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups?
> Certainly, one response per group is sufficient.
>
>
>
> If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions,
> please let me know.
>
>
>
> The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers
> will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the
> NGPC for your review.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
>
> Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> All,
>
>
> Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it
> seems to me that the way forward is to focus
> as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every
> attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner.
>
>
> This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to
> be submitted to the Council by 28 April
> for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting.
>
>
> We are being asked (full letter attached for reference) to
>
> 1. Š
> advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional
> provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy
> Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains;
> or
> 2. advise
> ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including
> an explanation as to why additional time is required.
>
> I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups
> / constituencies is therefore:
>
>
> Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of
> GNSO Policy Recommendation 19?
> It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as
> possible along the following lines:
>
>
> · No.
> It is not inconsistent (Š with the letter and intent Š).
> and
> · Possibly,
> an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent.
> and
> · Are
> there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its
> response to the NGPC?
>
>
> OR
>
>
> · Yes.
> It is inconsistent ( Š with the letter and intent Š ).
> and
> · Possibly,
> an explanation as to why it is inconsistent.
> and
> · Is
> there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving
> this issue and in what time frame?
>
>
> Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the
> above. The timing is
> very tight.
>
>
> We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e.
> no, it is not inconsistent.
>
>
> Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the
> Council on or before 28 April) and an associated
> letter to the NGPC.
> Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel
> with the consultation work.
> Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets
> done? Thomas?
>
>
> I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of
> providing a representative, timely and
> effective response.
> I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the
> discussion to date. Please correct
> me if I have.
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
> 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) €310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>
> 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
> updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * *References*:
> o *Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question*
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>
>
> + /From:/ Volker Greimann
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <<<
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16073.html>
> Chronological Index
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16074> >>>
> <<<
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16072.html>
> Thread Index
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16074>
> >>> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Call
>
> Send SMS
>
> Add to Skype
>
> You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
>
> ===========================================================
> CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue
> Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
> by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
> ===========================================================
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
> distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify
> the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original
> message without making any copies.
> ===========================================================
> NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has
> elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
> ===========================================================
>
--
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: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
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: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140429/affde816/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140429/affde816/attachment.png>
More information about the council
mailing list