[council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse

[Alan Greenberg]

Jeff (and others),

I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very 
substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", 
The 20 March document 
(http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution-memo-20mar13-en.pdf) 
specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. 
That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 
100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in 
the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the 
TMCH for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50.

Alan

At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

>Bruce,
>
>Thanks for forwarding.  I think there are some points in here that 
>need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my 
>view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would 
>like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting 
>and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
>
>I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision 
>in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda 
>and get the invites out there to the BGC.  I would also request that 
>the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full 
>discussion can take place.
>
>PLEASE NOTE:  I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 
>50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS.  AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE 
>BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO 
>OTHERS.   BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS 
>DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE 
>MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO 
>SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
>
>This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably 
>from outside legal counsel).  It was written as a legal brief in 
>litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire 
>bottom-up multi-stakeholder model.   If ICANN wanted to justify 
>their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, 
>they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been 
>more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a 
>way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model.  It not only 
>demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an 
>accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if 
>we do not step in.
>
>Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members 
>to the next Council meeting?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM
>To: council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the 
>Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the 
>Trademark Clearinghouse
>
>Hello All,
>
>For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 
>13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
>
>These have been published at:
>
>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
>
>The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its 
>meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin