[bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

Thu Dec 10 07:21:21 UTC 2009

Hi Phil,

Re the transfer option for the URS, why has ICA's position changed since the
BC's Seoul meeting?

Zahid and I do not know why the IPC and others are caving in to a compromise
that is likely to do very little to alleviate the problem of cybersquatting
in new gTLDs, particularly when we (Zahid especially) worked so hard to get
important concessions from so many parties along the way.  To see them
discarded at the end for no reason has been a tremendous disappointment for
us, and we believe should be very disappointing for all members, including
the ICA.  

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:11 PM
To: zahid at dndrc.com; bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your
review

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 
Partner 
Butera & Andrews 
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
Suite 500 
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office) 

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"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

FYI.

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.

Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

*** 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

Dear All,

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.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

_____________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091209/0052ce80/attachment.html>