ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Comments regarding the strawman

  • To: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Comments regarding the strawman
  • From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 01:05:13 +0900
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=to:date:date:subject:subject:from:from:x-mailer:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :mime-version:references; s=dkim; t=1356797121; x=1357661121; bh=QoUjow2lWE68EdllBpDAhx35MXcp59pcFE0Kyy7hxuc=; b=JPx0OLPJqhpO NQqmonIklTKJY8z16xa7G/TOnxODi3Xfl0WO18EJOqx9CW8SHSi/qSVaHBnp21GY oAR2ueAcR85x44bNsFjg06Ay0rN6BNkMbQdwEV3FB7AcBQHeAxxkpnbNyK9fYiXq HYSdwhDIgfevxaY/8nmv7uvAVLlqWG0=
  • In-reply-to: <EF01E86B-CDEC-4213-86AA-E69679930761@5x5com.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <EF01E86B-CDEC-4213-86AA-E69679930761@5x5com.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks Mason, that would have been my view and resulting input as well.


Sent from my iPad

On 29.12.2012, at 01:33, Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All --
> I don't at all mean to pick on Brian personally, but I became aware earlier 
> of a news article covering our most recent council meeting.  (A side note: we 
> should remember that the media and others listen in on our call, and our 
> conversations are public and could end up in news coverage.)
> The article says:
> Brian Winterfeldt, Steptoe & Johnson, an IPC representative on the GNSO 
> Council, said that the IPC does not agree with all points of the draft 
> response. The IPC understood the strawman proposal to be the product of 
> negotiations that resulted in a consensus among the participants―including 
> representatives from all ICANN constituencies, Winterfeldt said. 
> “Stakeholders who now say that rights protections should not be revisited 
> cast doubt on the good faith of negotiations.” 
> For avoidance of doubt, I want to restate the RrSG's understandings.  Our 
> representatives in the meeting were there at Fadi's request to discuss the 
> trademark clearinghouse and to listen to staff's input on the strawman.  They 
> would not at all characterize that (or any meeting on the strawman) as a 
> negotiation, nor would they say consensus exists on the content of the 
> proposals.  It was clear there would be an opportunity for comment following 
> the meetings.  Our participation in those discussions can't be presumed to be 
> acceptance of the proposals or the process by which they were considered.
> I made that point on our 20 December call, I believe, but thank you for 
> indulging my repeating it.
> Mason

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>