<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.BodyTextIndent2Char
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>News
Corporation shares the views of the brand owners that have posted on the
list. We believe strong trademark protection mechanisms are important in
and of themselves, but they also facilitate fair competition and prevent
consumer fraud, issues about which all businesses should care deeply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Also,
as a company that is a member of many trade/business associations we recognize
that existing policies can and should evolve. However, as in those other
associations, a change from an existing position must follow the same
procedures under which the position was originally adopted. Therefore, in
the context of this current debate, past positions should prevail unless a
majority of members agree to change/evolve them. Several members have
mentioned that it is pointless to reiterate past positions that have not been
adopted by ICANN. We would note that unfortunately, no explanation has
been provided by ICANN as to why the BC's longstanding positions have been
ignored. With this in mind, we think the burden lies with ICANN to
articulate its rationale so that the community can assess the rationale's
legitimacy and then consider how to proceed. This is particularly
important in light of the economic analysis presented in Brussels.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Janet
and I look forward to working with everyone to find a solution to this within
the BC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>David<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Zahid
Jamil<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 19, 2010 5:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Jon Nevett'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Phil Corwin'; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com;
jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com;
bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Have been following in this discussion intermittently.
Here are some of my quick thoughts. The IRT is not and has not been the
yard stick by which BC comments or views have been formed in the past. BC
did support the IRT but clearly stated that the IRT had not gone far
enough. If we take the argument that the IRT position should be followed
solely then please keep the GPML in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>We currently have no solutions for the defensive registration
problem. The URS is not Rapid. There is no transfer of the domain
in a URS. The Trademark Clearinghouse is not a Rights Protection
Mechanism (admittedly). So what are we really left with. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jon’s discussions here in the BC are reminiscent of the
arguments Jon made in the IRT and the STI where, at the time, Jon was
representing Registrar interests. He has been a valuable member of both
groups and I look forward to his arguing in favour of BC positions now with the
same, if not greater, zeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Any argument that amounts to –they didn’t listen to
us in the past so let’s give up and settle for what we can does not
address the problem. There is much to be said about consistency. I
would encourage the BC to also take from the existing BC minority position in
the STI report. That is a BC position and hence, it ought to be repeated
where appropriate (have attached the STI report – BC minority position is
at page 31). We should be lobbying for better protection, in my view, not
less since ICANN staff proposals sideline and ignore business and trademark
interests.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Lets also remember that the BC position has been vindicated in
the Economic Analysis which asks that limited rounds be undertaken and clearly
underscores the economic cost of the defensive registration problem. Just
because we haven’t worked on how limited rounds would be implemented it
doesn’t mean that the concept is flawed. The Economic study makes
cogent arguments in its favour. Its now up to ICANN staff and possibly community
to come up with mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Also the Economic Analysis clearly finds that there need to be
surveys and studies (details in the report) which should be conducted and then
mechanisms developed based on actual statistics. Clearly showing that
ICANN staff has run away with the new gTLD proposal without adequate study and
analysis. Hence, mention of the Analysis is quite pertinent and I support
Jeff’s views in this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Have pasted my Brussels email below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>My edits in [...]</span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> </span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> </span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> </span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Economic Study:</span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>In light of the newly released economic study what steps are
envisioned by ICANN staff: including:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Survey (how)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Study (how)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Past introductions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Methodlogies<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>In particular re TM, user confusion (notwithstanding the current
RPMs)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>P – 16 – 17 :<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Subsidies<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Adjust Fee vs. Favourable approval process</span></b><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>25 - </span><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>Potential
consumer confusion or fragmentation of the Internet</span></i><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>26 - </span><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>Increased
registration costs for companies that feel the need to be</span></i><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>in multiple places
on the Internet</span></i><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>28 - </span><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>Defensive
registrations</span></i><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>29 - </span><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>Increased cost
to companies to police new gTLD registrations that</span></i><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>violate trademarks
or copyrights [<b>VIGILANCE</b>]</span></i><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>44 - </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black;background:yellow'>74 percent of the registered domain names either
were “under construction,” for</span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black;background:yellow'>sale, returned an error, or did not return a
website at all. Thus, at least in the early stages of .biz, the
great majority of registered domain names were not being used to provide
content to users, again indicating that the registrations may have been
defensive.</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>59 – <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>105<b>. A survey of registrants would likely be needed to
disentangle the extent to which</b></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>duplicate registrations are either purely defensive (and
constitute external costs) or generate benefits to the registrants</span></b><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;color:black'>. A survey of
trademark owners could provide information on the reasons for registration of
domain names in multiple gTLDs, such as how registrants use the additional
gTLDs (</span><i><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>e.g., </span></i><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;color:black'>to provide new
content or purely to redirect to another site) and whether the registrants
expect to reach a new audience with the new gTLD.</span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;color:black'>115</span><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>[Zahid Note - SURVEY requested by IRT
hasn’t been undertaken by Staff either] </span></b><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>61 - </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>We recommend that ICANN consider the potential for consumer
confusion in deciding how quickly to proceed with the introduction of gTLDs,
possibly incorporating some methodology to measure consume confusion as new
gTLDs are rolled out over time.</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>62 - </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>This potential project would use case studies to examine the
likely costs and benefits in broad categories of new gTLDs.</span><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>Such studies would lead to recommendations on how ICANN could
craft its application process and ongoing rules to lessen the likelihood of
delegating gTLDs that will have negative net social benefits and to enhance the
net social benefits from gTLDs that are designated.</span></u></b><b><u><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;color:black'>117</span></u></b><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>para 117 – end:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>117. First, it may be wise to continue ICANN’s practice of <b>introducing
new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds</b>. It is impossible to predict the
costs and benefits of new gTLDs accurately. By proceeding with multiple rounds,
the biggest likely costs—consumer confusion and trademark
protection—can be evaluated in the earlier rounds to make more accurate
predictions about later rounds.</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>118. Second, in order to derive the greatest informational
benefits from the next round of</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
color:black'>gTLD introductions, ICANN should <b>adopt practices that will
facilitate the assessment of the net benefits from the initial rollout of
additional gTLDs</b>. Specifically, ICANN should require registries,
registrars, and domain names registrants to provide information sufficient to
allow the estimation of the costs and benefits of new gTLDs. For example, there
might be mandatory reporting of trademark disputes.</span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Zahid Jamil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Barrister-at-law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jamil & Jamil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Barristers-at-law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>219-221 Central Hotel Annexe<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Cell: +923008238230<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Fax: +92 21 35655026<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.jamilandjamil.com/"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:9.0pt'>www.jamilandjamil.com</span></a></span><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Notice / Disclaimer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deutsch,
Sarah B<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 19 July 2010 15:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Jon Nevett<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com;
jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com;
bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Jon,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Thanks for clarifying. If this is the case, then it looks
like ICANN kept the high burden of proof for trademark owners on the one
hand and ditched other parts of the deal, including that it be in
exchange for a rapid (hence the "R" in the name URS) process.</span><span
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>As a practical matter, I don't see how any trademark owner
will be able to prove anything more than they already prove in
filing a UDRP case. For example, in most cases, you'll know the
infringer took your domain name, which is identical or confusingly similar to
your trademark. You may or may not have screen shots of ads on their
infringing webpages. You may or may not have accurate WHOIS
information about the infringer. You may or may not have evidence that
the infringer stole other third party trademarks. </span><span
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><br>
</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>There is no certainty for trademark owners about what is meant by
"clear and convincing evidence" and how to meet that standard
over the evidence we typically submit in the UDRP process.
Obviously, there's no way to know the subjective intent of the infringer without full
blown litigation and discovery. At a minimum, ICANN needs to
give more guidance on this issue.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>This burden of evidence standard is just one more reason why brand
owners will avoid using the URS. </span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Sarah</span><span lang=EN-GB><br>
<br>
</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Sarah B. Deutsch <br>
Vice President & Associate General Counsel <br>
Verizon Communications <br>
Phone: 703-351-3044 <br>
Fax: 703-351-3670 </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 19, 2010 3:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Deutsch, Sarah B<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com;
jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com;
bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Sarah:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Sorry if I was unclear. The intent of
the IRT was to have the same legal standard for the UDRP and URS (the same
elements -- registration with bad fait intent, etc.), but having a higher
burden of proof (clear and convincing vs. preponderance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Here are the relevant quotes from the IRT
report -- <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>"The
Final Evaluation analysis involves consideration of three basic issues, similar
to the standards for a UDRP decision, but requires a<b> much higher burden of
proof</b>." (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>"If
the Examiner finds that all of these elements are satisfied by <b>clear and
convincing evidence</b> and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then
the Examiner shall issue a decision in favor of the Complainant."
(emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>These
positions had a unanimous consensus of the IRT. Not sure the relevance of
my status on the IRT, but for the record I was told by the IPC that I wasn't
representing registrars on the IRT. If you had heard the crap that I got
from my former registrar colleagues, you would understand that I definitely
wasn't representing them on the IRT :-).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>As
I don't believe that the BC complained about this burden of proof in the past
on the IRT, on the STI, or any public comments thereafter, I don't think that
we should raise it here. If we think that the URS was changed in a way
that is problematic, let's focus on those changes instead of trying to go back
on issues that had complete consensus and haven't changed at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>jon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Deutsch, Sarah
B wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Jon,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Thank you for your many constructive changes. I want to
respond to one suggested edit you made below:</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>*I deleted the clear and convincing evidence
issue with regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say that it
clearly was our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof than
the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted the URS to
be for "slam dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less expensive
alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs go unanswered.</span></em><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </span><span
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br>
</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>1. I don't disagree that the URS, like the UDRP, should be
used for slam dunk cases. I'm glad you confirmed that the legal
standard was supposed to be exactly the same. It's my understanding that
proof under the UDRP is in fact based on a preponderance of the evidence
standard, not a clear and convincing evidence standard. See below. </span><span
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><a name=1.3.1.1><strong><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Section 1.3.1.1 – Burden of Proof
(How much proof is necessary?)</span></strong></a><strong><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span></strong><span
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><strong><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue'>In the administrative
proceeding, the Complainant must prove that each of the three elements
contained in Section 4(a) of the Policy are present.</span></strong><span
lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><strong><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue'>Comment: In general, the
Panels recognize a preponderance of the evidence standard. Preponderance
of the evidence means that a fact is proved when it is more likely than not
that the fact is true.</span></strong><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue'>2. Rather than delete this
sentence in its entirety, I would recommend inserting back in the following
single sentence: "The BC recommends that while the URS is intended to
deal with "slam dunk," cases, we ask ICANN to clarify that the legal
standard remain the exactly the same as that found in the UDRP. ICANN
should clarify that while proof of bad faith must be clear, the evidence
generally can be established by a proponderance of evidence
standard."</span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>3. I know that you were a
valuable member of the IRT and at that time you were representing
registrars' views. Other IRT members point out to me one additional
point. The "slam dunk" aspect of the URS was in exchange for a
quick and cheap process. No one knows how cheap this will wind
up being, but there is no question that the "quick" part of this
trade off has disappeared. Many IRT participants confirm
that the DAG4 doesn't represent anything akin to the deal they thought
they had struck. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Sarah<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br>
<br>
<span style='color:navy'>Sarah B. Deutsch <br>
Vice President & Associate General Counsel <br>
Verizon Communications <br>
Phone: 703-351-3044 <br>
Fax: 703-351-3670 </span></span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Zahid Jamil<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Phil Corwin'; <a
href="mailto:michaelc@traveler.com">michaelc@traveler.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:jb7454@att.com">jb7454@att.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com">randruff@rnapartners.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com">ffelman@markmonitor.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Folks: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Attached is a suggested redraft to bridge
the gap. I personally don't agree with some of the arguments I left in
the attached, but I tried to keep the longstanding BC positions while toning
down the anti-TLD language. I also deleted a couple of the arguments that
were objected to in some of the notes I reviewed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Here are some of the highlights:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*I deleted the GPML section.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*I deleted the clear and convincing
evidence issue with regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say
that it clearly was our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof
than the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted
the URS to be for "slam dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less
expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs go
unanswered. Has this issue even been raised before by the BC?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*Based on Sarah's helpful e-mail, I left
alone the complaint about transferring names after a successful URS as that has
been an issue that Zahid, Mike and others in the BC have argued consistently.
I do note, however, that transfer was not in the IRT recommendation and
the STI agreed to add a year to the registration at the request of the
complainant as a compromise. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*Again based on Sarah's e-mail, I left the
PDDRP section pretty much alone except for an argument about registries
warehousing names, but not using them, as that argument didn't make much sense
to me. That's exactly the function of a registry to warehouse names until
they are sold by registrars. If a registry "reserves" a name
and it is not in use at all, the mark holder should be thrilled that it can't
be registered by a squatter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*I also deleted the paragraph about the
Director of Compliance. I don't think it appropriate to comment on those
kinds of personnel matters. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*I didn't touch the arguments related to
community and 13 points (though I personally favor 14 points to avoid gaming --
sorry Ron), as that seems to be longstanding BC position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>*I didn't do much on the Market
Differentiation section either other than soften some of the language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>I have no idea if my attempt will get
consensus or not, but I thought it worthwhile to offer alternative language and
I tried hard to find a balance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Jon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br clear=all> This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information. It is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone.
Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any
content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to
the official business of News America Incorporated or its
subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any
of them. No representation is made that this email or its
attachments are without defect.
</body>
</html>