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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 09 April 2014 13:53
> *To:* jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *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 <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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:*martinsutton@xxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>[mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx]
> *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.
> 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
>
> Mobile
>
>         
>
> +44 (0)777 4556680
>
> Email
>
>         
>
> martinsutton@xxxxxxxx <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Website
>
>         
>
> www.hsbc.com <http://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>