[bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
pcorwin at butera-andrews.com
Thu Dec 10 04:11:11 UTC 2009
I very much appreciate the fact that the BC designated me in Seoul to serve as an alternate delegate to the STI-RT, despite the well known ICA differences with the IRT, and with the BC position on its work methodology and product.
That said, and for the record, the ICA does not agree with the BC position as regards the work of the STI-RT.
We have no specific disagreement with the BC minority position regarding the Trademark Clearinghouse. But we would note that the BC has registered 13 separate minority positions in regard to a proposal that the IPC has not registered a single objection to -- and wonder how it has come about that a constituency that is supposed to represent the broad interests of businesses conducted via the Internet has arrived at harder line positions on trademark issues than those of the constituency devoted to IP interests. (In comparison, only one other minority position was filed, on a single issue, by the RySG.)
We strongly dissent in regard to the BC position that the URS should provide a means to transfer a domain. The IRT proposed the URS as a supplement to the UDRP which, in exchange for a less expensive and expedited process, would lead to suspension of a domain rather than a transfer. Again, the BC is seeking to expand upon a proposal that the IPC has accepted. The ICA is not opposed to the consideration of an expedited, fast track UDRP -- so long as it that occurs within the context of a comprehensive UDRP reform PDP, rather than through a perversion of the limited scope of Supplemental Rules as has been proposed by the CAC and is anticipated from WIPO.
Thank you for consideration of our views.
Philip S. Corwin
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil [zahid at dndrc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Mike and me are drafting a minority report based upon existing BC positions culminating in the consensus at the Seoul meetings and comments from the list.
Unfortunately it seems we will probably have one day to submit this. We will be able to post the draft by tomorrow morning and look forward to comments tomorrow and will at day end submit to the STI.
Comments today so we can use them in our draft would be appreciated and would help speed matters up.
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:30:23 -0800
To: 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Thank you for a very productive call today. Attached for your review is the fourth draft of the STI Report, which attempts to pick up our discussions today.
I believe we are very close to a final version of this the report and would appreciate your comments or revisions by the close of business today, so that I can prepare the final report tomorrow morning. Also, please send your minority reports by tomorrow morning to ensure inclusion in the version that will be circulated to the GNSO Council. As discussed, if you need more time to draft a minority report, you would need to send to me next week, so that it can be forwarded to the Board after the GNSO Council vote (if successful) next Thursday.
Senior Policy Counselor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso