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

Deutsch, Sarah B sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com
Thu Dec 10 21:40:00 UTC 2009

I agree with this approach.  We should also make clear that the
Clearinghouse is not a true "remedy," but as a specific tool, which can
be used for the purpose of applying for multiple sunrise registrations.
Many businesses, however, still don't want to be forced to use this
process at all and there should no negative implication from not using
the tool or the sunrise process.  The STI also does not discuss the
difference between the use of the Clearinghouse for an  "IP Claims"
service (which could be a TM remedy)  vs. the sunrise option.  Because
registries have a choice between the two, most registries would choose
the more lucrative sunrise option.   I also did not see any discussions
of the minimum standards that should be included in any sunrise  process
as the IRT recommended in its report.  
The "something is better than nothing" nature of the Clearinghouse
shifts focus to the limited remedy of the URS .  Because the URS has no
transfer option, it's important to highlight that trademark owners will
inevitably bear increased costs from filing multiple URS actions against
different cybersquatters, monitoring and docketing suspensions, trying
to win back expiring names or filing more UDRPs to actually win valuable
names back into their portfolios .  

Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com


From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:04 PM
To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your

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


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


548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(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
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
Importance: High



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.


Zahid Jamil
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
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



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 Milam

Senior Policy Counselor





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091210/55b71f77/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list