Please note that this message is also being forwarded to the At-Large list. Alan
To: name-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: GNSO Selected Trademark Issues Review Team draft report
I am attaching a copy of the GNSO STI draft report. It is still undergoing revision. A final version is expected sometime today and I will forward it when available.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT PLAN WE ONLY HAVE 1.5 DAYS TO DECIDE ON THE WAY FORWARD - SEE MESSAGE AT END.
For background and references to previous documents, I refer you to my e-mail of 28Nov09 - http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann.org....
The discussions which led to this draft involved something well over 20 hours of teleconferences and innumerable e-mails, side discussions and sub-group work. So I will not try to describe it all here. But it is important to note a few things:
- this is a compromise proposal - no one has come out of this with their "perfect" result - it has been discussed negotiated and crafted with an immense amount of effort and cooperation and goof faith. Some of the more contentious parts were crafted by small teams often involving the Intellectual Property Constituency and NCSG and the results are models for how people with quite different perspectives and end-points can reach consensus. - all of that being said, there will be "minority statements" submitted by a number of groups (perhaps most) allow them to emphasize for the Board issues that they feel are important but on which a unanimous consensus could not be reached. Olivier and I will be suggesting that At-Large submit a minority position on the following issues:
+ Whether the Trademark Clearing house should be operated by a single provider, or should the two functional parts of the Clearinghouse be divided into two arms-length providers
+ To what extent should trademarks that are not formally registered be allowed in the Clearinghouse
+ Whether there should be a TM Claims process for all registrations post-launch (TM claims allows a registrant to be "warned" if there is potential overlap between their requested name and some mark in the Clearinghouse
+ Whether a transfer of the domain to the trademark holder should be allowed following a successful URS.
I will be sending out a more detailed description of these four minority positions soon, but did not want to delay getting the core document out first.
Timing is critical. The GNSO meets to decide whether to forward this document to the Board on Thursday, 17 December at 16:00 UTC. We decided that the ALAC should conduct a vote to complete prior to that time to decide on: - whether to endorse the report - What, if any, minority positions to take.
If this is to be a standard 5-day "short" vote, it needs to start by late Friday. That means we need a recommendation from the name-issues group prior to that time - in short, in the next 1.5 days at most.
This message will also be forwarded to the ALAC and At-Large lists. I would suggest that to the extent possible, the discussion be carried out on the At-Large list to involve the largest number of people.
Alan