<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>BC comments and consensus in the STI Report </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Zahid — Thanks for your ongoing efforts and dedication to serving the BC on this STI project. <BR>
<BR>
There’s an expression that goes, “<B><I>Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the Good</I>.</B>” To this I would add, “<B><I>Especially don’t push for perfect if that will help your opponents to kill-off what good there is.”<BR>
</I></B><BR>
Let me be more specific. By noting our Clearinghouse concerns as a “Minority Position”, the BC is depriving the STI Report of showing “Unanimous Consensus” about the threshold question of whether to have any Clearinghouse mechanism in Sunrise periods. <BR>
<BR>
Here’s why that’s bad for the BC: Opponents of IP rights protection (even those on Staff and Board) will note the lack of consensus in arguing that the Clearinghouse should not be required for new gTLDs. After all, didn’t Staff cite the lack of consensus among the IP community when they rejected the GPML?<BR>
<BR>
My recommendation: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>I think we should enable “Unanimous Consensus” for at least 3 critical items in the Clearinghouse Table of the STI report (1.1, 2.3, and 5.1) For those rows, let’s note our concerns without calling them “Minority Views”. Maybe we move those 3 concerns/commetnts to the bottom of the table?<BR>
Apart from those 3 items, I think we can leave our other concerns under Minority Views column.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><BR>
P.S. I heard from one of my member companies about this (AOL-TW), which prompted me to return to the suggestion I made on 2-Dec: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>We could agree that the Clearinghouse has a very limited benefit — just a way to cut costs for TM owners having to monitor multiple parallel sunrise periods. But that’s ALL it is, so we should neither consider nor accept this Clearinghouse mechanism as <U>the </U>required solution for defensive registrations. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><BR>
Again, thanks for what you’re doing, Zahid. (and please avoid the street markets there in Pakistan for awhile)<BR>
<BR>
--Steve<BR>
<BR>
-- <BR>
Steve DelBianco<BR>
Executive Director<BR>
NetChoice<BR>
<a href="http://www.NetChoice.org">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org">http://blog.netchoice.org</a> <BR>
+1.202.420.7482 <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 12/8/09 10:26 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <<a href="zahid@dndrc.com">zahid@dndrc.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><FONT COLOR="#1F497D"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Dear Members,<BR>
<BR>
Here are my edits to the STI Recommendations. It seems on the Clearinghouse BC finds itself in the minority but have stated positions for the record. <BR>
<BR>
The IPC is of the view that they should let the Clearinghouse through as it stands in the Recommendation. Since BC position is in the minority this seems as the likely result.<BR>
<BR>
ISPC has been absent from the STI proceedings.<BR>
<BR>
Am currently under heavy fire from Ry/Rr on the list for my edits – they want to push the edits out to the bottom of the document.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#1F497D"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Zahid Jamil</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>