[bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

Tue Jun 22 05:40:55 UTC 2010

I wonder about multi lateral organisations entering into a contract for providing service with a not for profit.

In regards the URS, having served on both the IRT and STI, my views are well known.  The URS is the only REAL Rights Protection Mechanism in the new gTLD environment.  (TM Clearinghouse not being an RPM).  It is only a Post launch RPM. Not a preventive RPM leaving the issue of defensive registration unresolved (also acknowledged by the Economic Study).  The URS does not therefore solve the defensive registration problem and makes TM owners pay for URS as opposed to incurring the cost of defensive registration.  In either case TM Owners subsidise new gTLDs for no economic benefit in return.

To top it all the URS is merely a temporary suspension (no transfer being made available to a successful Complainant).  At the end of a year the domain name pops back up (wackamo/revolving door) forcing the TM Owner to possibly paying again to suspend the domain.

Also the difference in the Rapidity of the UDRP and URS is .....wait for this..... ONE day less!   

Not really Rapid!

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

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:00:08 
To: Phil Corwin<pcorwin at butera-andrews.com>; <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on  ICANN DAG 4

Given the strong levels of concerns raised about the DAG from many
parties, I don't think we can characterize the current remedies as
having consensus, much less remarkable consensus.  Re-opening the UDRP
is a dangerous exercise that could wind up being a double edge sword..
Without a workable UDRP, IP owners will by default turn to suing
registrars.

In any event, it would be helpful if others from the BC could weigh in
on whether  the BC   c an support WIPO's comments.

Thanks,

Sarah

Sarah B. Deutsch 
Vice President & Associate General Counsel 
Verizon Communications 
Phone: 703-351-3044 
Fax: 703-351-3670 

________________________________

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin at butera-andrews.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'bc-gnso at icann.org'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

ICA would object to endorsing that portion of the letter that seeks to
reopen the URS debate and undo the remarkable consensus achieved by the
STI at the direction of the GNSO. 
Also, while I do not fully understand their last point, WIPO seems to
regard the UDRP as something they control rather than an ICANN consensus
policy they facilitate as arbitrator, and has opposed the community
reexamining it after 10 years of experience. The RAPWG, on the other
hand, has recommended a balanced PDP focused on UDRP reform. ICA
believes that placing all UDRP providers under standard contract should
be a key component of such reform and that doing so would enhance
uniform implementation that would benefit both complainants and
registrants. 
Philip S. Corwin 
Partner, Butera & Andrews 
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
Suite 500 
Washington, DC 20004 
2026635347/Office 
2022556172/Cell 

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org <owner-bc-gnso at icann.org> 
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso at icann.org> 
Sent: Mon Jun 21 08:17:30 2010
Subject: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4 

All,

I'm passing along WIPO's recent excellent and succint comments to ICANN
on continuing problems in the DAG v. 4.  I would propose that the BC
support these comments as they directly affect the availability of
effective remedies for businesses to protect their brands and consumers
from confusion after the rollout of new gTLDs.

See:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann160610.pdf.   

Sarah

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100622/c586a81e/attachment.html>