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

Thu Dec 10 21:03:50 UTC 2009

Hi Susan,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I think we are on the same page, naturally, as we
have had much the same experience with many prior sunrise processes.

To clarify, we are not opposing the Clearinghouse as framed.  Something is
better than nothing.  We are suggesting it should have much broader
applicability, and thus usefulness, both as to the scope of marks allowed
into the database, and the further use of the database throughout the life
of new gTLD registries.  We are suggesting that a feasibility study be done,
based on the TMC as framed, as compared to also requiring broader
applicability, before a final decision is made.  We are suggesting the costs
should be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars, who benefit by
far the most from the TMC as framed, and not borne by TM owners and other
registrants, except for a minimal registration fee to submit their public
records into the database.

Zahid and I hope we have consensus within the BC for these positions, based
on our written consensus statements of a month or so ago.  Please advise if
you do not support any of this.

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
Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:41 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
Importance: High

Hello Zahid, 

I have briefly reviewed the latest draft of the STI report and I am
concerned about the level of consensus that the BC is supporting on the IP
Clearinghouse in general.   In Section 1.1 and 5.1 you have noted a "Rough
Consensus"  for each principle.   We should change the designation of our
support of the IP Clearinghouse to Unanimous Consensus.    I am concerned
that if we do not support the IP Clearinghouse as it is designed for the
Sunrise period we will end up with no standard process in the new gTld
rollout.   A standard process across all gTld's is vital to a company like
Facebook.  In my experience in previous gTld rollouts and ccTld rollouts
numerous hours and outside counsel fees were expended to understand and
participate in the Sunrise periods.  I firmly believe that the IP
Clearinghouse will ease this burden going forward for Facebook. 

In the BC meeting in Seoul I argued strenuously to extend the use of the IP
Clearinghouse to post sunrise period but did not realize that this would
bring the BC to this Rough Consensus opinion.  

I will still argue for the use of the IP Clearinghouse in the post Sunrise
period but if we lose the battle to have it implemented at all we have
nothing to build upon in the future.  

The IP Clearinghouse is vital to the Sunrise process and would I urge others
on the list to rethink the BC's stance on it a Unanimous Consensus is our
best protection at this point in the process. 

Best regards, 

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager

Facebook Inc. 

1601 S. California Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 

Phone - 650 485-6064

Cell - 650 387 3904

NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that
is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other
privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or
retransmit the email or its contents."

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Zahid Jamil
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:48 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Importance: High

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/20091210/22ca4e36/attachment.html>