RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika,

Rather than working off of one statement Fadi made in Amsterdam and another 
statement he made in LA, can we get for tomorrow's meeting of the Council a 
definitive statement from ICANN as to where the "Strawman" actually is, what 
are the next proposed steps, and frankly where we are with the full 
implementation.  I note that we are pretty much half way through this month and 
the final statement of work with the providers of the Clearinghouse is still 
expected to be completed this month (according to the latest webinar in which 
icann indicated they are on target for completing this in February).  That 
being the case, logic would dictate that if icann is indeed on schedule, then 
the final solution must already be known.  Therefore, before we engage in a 
seemingly endless discussion hypothesizing about statements made in different 
parts of the world, perhaps we can get a definitive statement directly from the 
source.

Thanks.



Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Sent from iPad.  Please excuse any typos.


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:27 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:     Mason Cole; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List
Subject:        Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication 
from council

All, it may be worth noting that Fadi in his meeting with the NCPH in LA 
further clarified the comments made in Amsterdam as follows:


One is to clarify a comment I made in Amsterdam on Friday - after Davos I 
stopped in Amsterdam and the press and some other people carried my comment and 
extrapolated it in ways that were not true. So I don't have time to go fix it 
with the public but you are who matters so I'm just going to explain it. I did 
say publicly that I believed the way the trademark clearinghouse activities 
happened, I have made a mistake. And people construed that to mean I felt the 
whole thing was a mistake and we shouldn't of done it and, you know, this - let 
me clarify. I think as I have told you and I told some of you in person, I'm 
new to this process, (understand) that I'm new to this process and that I have 
learned - a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. It will be awhile 
before I fully appreciate the world I'm in now. 




And as such, what I explained is that the way I went about solving what I 
thought was an issue in Toronto and I needed to do something about it and I 
still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that 
you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I 
think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it. The 
mistake I did is that I did not fully appreciate the process and understand how 
the process should work. And some people got very upset with me and I have now 
a complaint with the (best) person who's spending two hours with me this 
afternoon with the complainant to discuss with and that's fine. That's the 
process and I respect it deeply and I'll be there for it but I am not at all 
saying and will not say and in fact I'm in vehement agreement with many of you 
in this room that we do have some issues and they have to be solved. If we are 
a responsible industry we have to face these issues and deal with them. 




If I made a mistake (in how) that's fine, I'll fix that and get on with how, 
but I am not shying away from the importance of the matters you brought to my 
attention and that I still believe need to be addressed. 




(see 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/39421288/transcript+CSG+-+CEO+29+Jan+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1359562587000).




With best regards,




Marika


From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:25
To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from 
council


I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has 
now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second 
bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would 
certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the 
domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is.

Sent from my iPad

On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



        Mason,

        Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the 
top?

        Berard
        


                --------- Original Message ---------
                Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested 
communication from council
                From: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm
                To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                
                Council colleagues --
                
                As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding 
the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional 
RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council 
reply.
                
                The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by 
a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are 
represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria 
Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we 
can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional 
input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be 
happy to forward it to the council.
                
                Thanks --
                
                Mason