RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting with ICANN Board

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Maria,

 

I had come around to that view as well.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 23 March 2014 12:06
To: Winterfeldt, Brian J.
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Meeting with ICANN Board

 

Hi all,

Just checking in - following Fadi's session with us yesterday and Theresa's
today, is there still a strong desire to put across the strat panels
question? I don't mind either way - but it strikes me that this is a very
full list and we have a lot of topics to discover. 

Maria

 

On 23 March 2014 12:00, Winterfeldt, Brian J.
<brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Brett:

 

Thank you for the suggestion.  However, contrary to the insinuation, my
comment is not advanced on behalf of any one client or in respect to any one
case.

 

Based on public comments and statements made here in Singapore, I was under
the impression that a considerable portion of the community saw the proposed
review mechanism as problematic for a variety of reasons including its scope
and, conversely, its very existence.

 

Perhaps you would like to lead any discussion with the Board on this issue
instead, given the Uniregistry public comment
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-sco-framework-principles-11feb14/msg0
0018.html>  on this issue, portions of which I am personally inclined to
agree with.

 

The proposal to further  reconsider these decisions on what appears to be an
arbitrary selection basis for such reconsideration is an invitation for all
parties dissatisfied with outcomes to lobby for ad-hoc changes to the new
TLD process.

 

* * * * 

 

We believe the more efficient view, however, is to allow the opinions to
stand, as they are, and resolve the contentions as described above, which
does not require any extraordinary intervention by ICANN.

 

Ultimately, to the extent that the Council addresses ?the success (or not)
of the new gTLD program? per the proposed agenda, I thought the pending SCO
review proposal should at least receive mention for consideration.

 

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 <tel:%28202%29%20625-3562>  f / (202) 339-8244
<tel:%28202%29%20339-8244> 
brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / www.kattenlaw.com
<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:30 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting with ICANN Board

 

On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J.
<brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

§  An ad hoc, unbalanced and unduly narrow proposed SCO review mechanism.

 

Brian, if you speak on this, can you please identify yourself as counsel for
Google in the CAR/CARS and other plurals disputes? 

 

At Uniregistry, we obviously have a different view on this. Having prevailed
in all of our disputes, we do not believe it is appropriate, or
contractually permissible, to ask us to reargue them. If we have one side of
this issue articulated to the Board, you?ll need to put me in the queue to
provide the counter view. 

 

         Bret

 

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. ? General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 ? Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) ? 310-985-1351 (M) ? bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
? ? ? ? ? 

 


===========================================================
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).
===========================================================