[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue May 16 15:53:58 UTC 2017
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience
the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this
does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to
watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims
notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect
affected parties from applications that affect them directly from
slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an
application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants
have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick
application and fires it off while the other takes care that the
application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that
takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its
benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should
consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with
cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
>
> Sigh.
>
> My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly
> handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
>
> Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of
> open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that
> round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail
> to comprehend how that is possible.
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
> *To: *Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot
> realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
>
> Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
>
> Volker,
>
> Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
>
> Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the
> load of the rush.
>
> We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day
> of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied
> yesterday just as today.
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker
> Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a
> discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when
> you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the
> rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
>
> Domains are registered every day on a first come first served
> basis in all the new gTLD’s.
>
> Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs,
> excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find
> that the majority will have about half or more of their overall
> registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
> Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the
> fastest will benefit from most.
>
> Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring.
> With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected
> parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an
> objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those
> organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and
> constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
> That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost
> effective for those affected.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin"
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> Rob,
>
> I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and
> “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications
> within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter
> whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number
> of applications won’t change.
>
> If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing
> than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a
> competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD
> snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
>
> There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to
> accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at
> least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is
> published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the
> AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only
> ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The
> application window itself could then be rather short (1 week
> should be enough).
>
> But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next
> round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for
> the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed
> date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window
> right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for
> it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
>
> So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism”
> with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows
> with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
> *From:*Rob Hall [mailto:rob at momentous.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> Alexander,
>
> There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are
> desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and
> use review and updating to enact that delay.
>
> The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And
> now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds
> envisioned the same thing.
>
> If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be
> open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
>
> The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not
> allowing open applications.
>
> We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A
> round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications
> during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
>
> Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open
> applications.
>
> Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes
> away if we just allow open applications.
>
> I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues
> with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
> *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>" <alexander at schubert.berlin
> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> Hi,
>
> I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain
> categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the
> strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these
> suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say:
> This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
>
> Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic
> keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as
> either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small
> geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) –
> obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked.
> They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to
> “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
>
> Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the
> DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50
> (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally
> before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing
> your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice.
> But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire
> generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with
> everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the
> real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because
> you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected
> – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services
> Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be
> targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not
> tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” –
> but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just
> for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75
> Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone
> to apply for a gTLD for them.
>
> And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application
> is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny
> others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability
> for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
>
> So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever
> it is) – once the applications are all in: we might
> “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But
> that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
>
> As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing
> process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a
> certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we
> open the system up and allow real time application submitting.
> Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual
> “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like
> now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now
> (between the 1^st and the 2^nd round). After that there will
> be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on
> the fly”. I guess the 2^nd round (2020) will take up all of
> ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3^rd round could be
> set 2 years after the 2^nd , the 4^th a year after the 3^rd ,
> then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future
> applicants – and definite schedule!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan
> Greenberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
> *To:* Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com <mailto:rob at momentous.com>>;
> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address
> the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we
> choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the
> other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
>
> Alan
>
> At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Help me understand why you would not want to get to a
> state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
>
> I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we
> are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
>
> I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed
> the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD
> registration process, they could have easily applied by
> now. I suspect that the entire reason for
> “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with
> one ahead of another.
>
> By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that
> causes most of the contention and issues.
>
> As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why
> categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
>
> Rob.
>
> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
> *To: *Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com <mailto:rob at momentous.com>>
> *Cc: *Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>,
> "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather
> "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one
> of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your
> preferred answer now....)
>
> There are a number of good reasons for categories --
> certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning
> the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD
> space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
>
> There were certainly problems with the community
> applications (not really a separate "round") but something
> done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have
> plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the
> New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We
> should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse
> to move away from them.
>
> Greg
>
> *Greg Shatan**
> *C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall
> <rob at momentous.com <mailto:rob at momentous.com>> wrote:
>
> I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
>
> If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where
> anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems
> to be a waste of time.
>
> The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial
> Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up
> on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming
> when someone games the system. Have we not learned
> anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went
> through ?
>
> Rob.
>
> From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
>
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> >
>
> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> That would be helpful.
>
> I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring
> categories, as it caused no end of problems after
> applications were submitted and created unnecessary
> delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a
> proven demand, categories can be created and processes
> refined for that particular category, especially where the
> operating model is very different to the traditional
> selling /distribution to third parties.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Martin
>
> Martin Sutton
>
> Executive Director
>
> Brand Registry Group
>
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org
> <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>
> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> > wrote:
>
> Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6
> months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of
> Kurt Pritz
>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
>
> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org
> <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> Hi Everyone:
>
> In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the
> spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551
> ).
>
> It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the
> ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not
> adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because
> they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to
> implement.
>
> Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the
> tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means
> that each of the many tick marks presents a significant
> barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a
> timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
>
> Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
>
> The single most important lesson from the 2003-04
> sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation
> of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying
> criteria associated with categories.
>
> In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category
> types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the
> implementation of both was problematic: look at the
> variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA.
> This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was
> extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel
> adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one
> ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort
> of issue is simple compared to evaluating community
> applications.
>
> The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a
> number of different accommodations will lead to a complex
> and difficult application and evaluation process (and an
> expensive, complicated contractual compliance
> environment). It is inevitable that the future will
> include ongoing attempts to create policy for new
> categories as they are conceived.
>
> For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable
> gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
>
> Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a
> process that
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
>
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /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>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
>
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /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>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /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>
> 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>
> 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /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>
> 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>
> 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.
--
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/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170516/15af33f7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list