[bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report/a typo noted and a suggestion for more clarity on a point or two

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 11 17:40:00 UTC 2009

While I generally support the Minority Report, I want to raise one item just for awareness and consideration. 
Re the suggestion on page one that the "costs of developing and operating the TMC must be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars":   I think that in the past that business has understood that there would also need to be a cost based fee that would be paid by trademark holders who decide to use the service. I think that we need to be pragmatic and realistic about recognizing that there will be a fee for trademark holders, and focus on making it 'cost based'.  
I agree that the TMC will also benefit registries, of course.  The last sentence under Who Pays? does indicate that the costs would be shared. 
I think that we need to be very pragmatic about recognizing that costs have to be shared, but that the trademark fees must be "cost based" fees. 
I especially appreciate that the minority report makes it clear that defensive registrations remain a serious problem with the present lack of safeguards.  

typo:  Under What does a Match mean? Second sentence, : However, the STI.... ... 
I wonder if we might change the use of the term 'mean spirited'. Perhaps as business people, we might just say that the BC supports the ALAC representative's comments that object to 'forcing successful URS complainants... etc. 

I like the proposal for a feasibility study. We might want to make it clear that we consider this a 'fast track' feasibility study, so that it is not rejected out of hand as an effort to delay any progression on new gTLDs. 
Thanks for the hard work of the BC team. 
Marilyn Cade 
From: berrycobb at infinityportals.com
To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; bc-gnso at icann.org
CC: Margie.Milam at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:14:09 -0800

I support the BC Minority
Position as attached with only one small edit.


Page 2, What does a Match Mean?

2nd Sentence....

However, he STI
recommends   ß should it be “the STI recommends”?



Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC



From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh

Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 07:14

To: bc-gnso at icann.org

Cc: 'Margie Milam'

Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report


Attached please find the Minority Statement that Zahid and I
have drafted, based upon the earlier consensus document agreed by the BC,
further comments from Members during this STI process, and our own negotiation
and participation efforts within the STI team.


I also include Zahid’s version 1.0, which I have edited
drastically due to focus, length and repetition.  He has not had a chance
to review my version 2.0 yet, either, as he is hopefully asleep right now.


Margie, this is tentative, subject to modification upon
formal review of our membership, but Zahid and I believe it represents
consensus of the BC.  We ask you to please hold it, and do not submit the
Initial Report to the Council, until at least 3pm PST today, to allow our
members the chance to offer comments to me and Zahid, for possible further
editing today.





Mike Rodenbaugh


548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091211/123ff455/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list