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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The task before us is to fulfill Fadi's request for input from the council.  
That's what the draft seeks to do, and from discussions and comments between 
the Dec. 28 draft and today, the draft accurately represents the view of the 
majority of the council.  As discussed before, the remaining item of business 
is documenting the views of the IPC and BC.  It obviously will disagree with 
the view of other councilors, which given the discussion since Tornoto is to be 
expected -- that position simply needs to be included in the communication.

The comment period is long closed, and most SGs have weighed in.  The council 
communication is the last remaining item, and it's not a complicated task.  I 
would suggest that following discussion on tomorrow's call, the drafting team 
can and should complete the letter and submit it to Fadi next week.


On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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
>               
>               
>               
>               
>