RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

["Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear James and Volker:

Thank you both for your clarifying comments.  I think you have hit on the heart 
of the issue:

“[B]y crafting registration policies and accreditation rules carefully, 
dotBrand owners can differentiate.”

“The brand owner can simply direct its affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, 
and Z as a component of the licensing agreement.”

Despite current industry practice, those suggestions could be interpreted by 
some as indirect discrimination by the registry, vis-à-vis its registration 
policies or licensing agreements, in conflict with Registry Agreement §2.9(a).  
Personally, I might suggest one compromise way forward would be for the Council 
to request a formal opinion from the ICANN legal department affirming the 
propriety of your suggested approaches in view of the Registry Agreement’s 
prohibitions against discrimination.

In addition, it behooves me to reiterate on list the formal IPC position on the 
matter, which I established during our last Council teleconference.  The IPC 
supports the preferred registrar exemption for dot brand TLDs.  It is 
consistent with existing policy work, which explicitly recognized that the 
non-discrimination requirement “has not always worked for very small, 
specialized gTLDs,” and that “the possible impact … is that they can be at the 
mercy of registrars form whom there is no good business reason to devote 
resources.”  Added to that existing policy work are the recent and myriad 
public comments on Specification Thirteen espousing elements of trust, 
confidence, security and plain common sense appurtenant to this preferred 
registrar exemption.

Surely, there are caveats that can be established to assuage lingering concerns 
with respect to any slippery slope eroding non-discrimination principles in the 
larger, non-branded TLDs.

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> / 
www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/>


Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

  *   To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." 
<brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  *   Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
  *   From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  *   Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:42:19 +0000
  *   Accept-language: en-US
  *   Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) 
smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
  *   In-reply-to: 
<535F6034.4040700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16083.html>>
  *   List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  *   Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  *   Thread-index: Ac9jLEUHNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAAV0EkAAA1rdoA=
  *   Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

________________________________

It’s actually even simpler than that:  the brand owner can simply direct its

affiliates to choose from registrar X,Y, and Z as a component of the licensing

agreement.



J.





From: Volker Greimann

<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at 3:17

To: "Winterfeldt, Brian J."

<brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO

Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question



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 among Affiliates 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] (202) 625-3562 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting f / (202) 339-8244

brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> /

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





Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question



  *   To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett

<bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

  *   Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

  *   From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>

  *   Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000

  *   Accept-language: en-US

  *   In-reply-to:

<535E1AA3.6090807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>>

  *   List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  *   Sender: owner-council@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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Date:  Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08



To:  Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List



<council@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.png] 310-496-5755 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE

end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting

begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE

end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹



























On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@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@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@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@xxxxxxxxxxx>







Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question







Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58



 MESZ







An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx







Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@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@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.png] 310-496-5755 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE

end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting

begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE  
end_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE

end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 
FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting

901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting



Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851



Email: vgreimann@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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting

[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
[skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 
FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting

901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting



Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851



Email: vgreimann@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:

     *   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 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



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 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



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.









Attachment: 
ATT00001.png<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pngsFsslRKGPf.png>
Description: ATT00001.png

________________________________

  *   References:
     *   Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 
question<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16083.html>
        *   From: Volker Greimann

________________________________
<<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16087.html> 
Chronological 
Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16088> 
>>> <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16083.html> 
Thread 
Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16088> 
>>><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html>
________________________________