[bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

Frederick Felman Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com
Tue Jun 22 06:41:03 UTC 2010

We stand with Zahid and Sarah in support of the WIPO remarks and agree  
with Zahid's comments below.

Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733

(please excuse any content I might blame on the size of the keyboard &  
screen including but not limited to typos)

On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:45 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid at dndrc.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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 -0400
> 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/20100622/2986cfc4/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list