[bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

Phil Corwin pcorwin at butera-andrews.com
Tue Jun 22 07:33:04 UTC 2010

I believe that the BC risks its credibility by proposing to reopen STI positions that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council and subsequently by the ICANN Board and that are now included in DAGv4. Do we really want to revive and revisit the divisive debates of 2009?
Having said that, the ultimate relief for rights owners across all gTLDs can come from the balanced UDRP PDP that Sarah opposes. That process, started now, could result in reforms being put in place coincident with the addition of new gTLDs at the end of 2011/early 2012.
Finally, there must be some mechanism to assure uniform application by all UDRP arbitration providers as in its absence there will be increasing divergence and resultant forum shopping.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

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

From: Frederick Felman <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>
To: zahid at dndrc.com <zahid at dndrc.com>
Cc: Sarah B Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com>; owner-bc-gnso at icann.org <owner-bc-gnso at icann.org>; Phil Corwin; BC Secretariat <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Sent: Tue Jun 22 02:41:03 2010
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

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<mailto: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!


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

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<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com>>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:00:08 -0400
To: Phil Corwin<pcorwin at butera-andrews.com<mailto:pcorwin at butera-andrews.com>>; <bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto: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.



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<mailto:'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

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

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100622/54095604/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list