- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Registry/Registrar Separation
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

(for those of you not here in Seoul) Below is what I said (not on behalf of BC) today at the Public Forum, regarding Rr/Ry separation. I Listened to debate over separation. inconclusive (both sides passionate and articulate) > But I did learn about motivations for Registrars wanting to run Registries > > I learned about innovative methods for monetizing premium names. What I learned tells me ICANN should reset public expectations about benefits of new TLDs. > Let¹s start being more transparent about the way names will and won¹t be > available to the public. > > Let¹s limit disappointment when TLDs launch. > > And let¹s make it less likely that the review team on Competition , Consumer > Trust, and Choice will give ICANN a failing grade. For years, the Rhetoric of expectations has been: we need new TLDs to give registrants all those ³good names that are unavailable in current TLDs. That¹s the rhetoric. What¹s the reality? > Reality 1: new gTLD applicants will maximize profits on premium names, whether > by selling them at diff prices, or by having an affiliate park the domain with > advertising. That name is never going be available to a registrant that wants > to use it for content or commerce. > > Reality 2: will see Innovative ways to identify and control premium names at > launch, and then afterwards, when words and phrases suddenly acquire premium > value ( h1n1.whatever) There¹s Nothing illegal about that, and new Ry contracts allow uncapped and variable premium pricing. And you don¹t have to own a registrar to monetize your names I¹ve been educated about that. But let¹s stop kidding ourselves and the internet public about how new TLDs will let ordinary people register names they want but can¹t get today. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 2

GNSO Participation Study - pdf
by BC Secretariat Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Regarding my previous mail, please find attached the corrupted Word doc as a PDF file Gary

1 0

RE: CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group
by Berry Cobb Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

CBUC, My mistake, PEDNR is a formal PDP, and not a Pre-PDP as I indicated below. My apologies for any confusion. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@infinityportals.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:16 To: 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org' Subject: CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group CBUC, Attached is the DRAFT Position Statement for CBUC relative to the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group. (PEDNR-WG). All comments and suggestions are welcome. With the PEDNR being a Pre-PDP, it is my understanding a formal vote by the CBUC will not occur on this position statement. Rather, it will be reserved for a final CBUC Position statement based on PEDNR outcomes and recommendations. Please advise if you have questions or comments. I will be sure to incorporate all comments and changes to this statement. It is my desire to have this statement returned to the PEDNR - WG by COB 11/6/2009. Thank you. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891

3 4

Re: [bc-gnso] Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Great stuff Zahid - well doine. > Today the 3 days of off line negotiations and reaching out to the ALAC and > NCSG on the issue of the IRT Report and the RPMs were successful. > > 3 hours of discussion (with the help of the ALAC- Alan and Cheryl) on > Monday > with NCSG reps (Kathryn Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis) followed by > discussions through yesterday were successful in providing background and > a > context to the BC position on the IRT Report. > > Initially on the Council list the NCSG had indicated and unwillingness of > the IRT being available as a resource. > > Summary of points for discussion that were discussed were (subject to them > being taken back to the NCSG): > > Welcome the IRT and other resources being available to the GNSO Working > Group working on the Board's letter regarding the RPMs (ie. STI review > team). > > At the session on Thursday (today) express the willingness that NCSG had > for > reaching out constructively to the GNSO community (language discussed > included reaching common ground). > > The GNSO passed a Resolution today with the support of the NCSG stating: > The assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions about the IP > Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be > useful to this work. The GNSO Council requests that members of the IRT who > worked on those recommendations be available to answer any such questions > that may arise; > > I believe that possibly a more integral part than the discussion with > Kathy > in achieving this was the efforts of members from other Constituency(s) > that > may have helped mediate this resolution through. > > > In today's session on Trademark Protection and new gTLDs (transcript > attached): > > Kathy responded positively and at the end of her first intervention > stated: > > '....we in the NCUC want to work with you. We want to establish common > ground, and we wish the best of luck for all of us in this expedited > process.' > > She even went as far as saying in regards the IRT URS recommendation for > Appeal: > > '.....and I have to say it, and I guess I'm on the record, the IRT kind of > got this one right and let's go back to that.' > > This was met with equal good will by CSG members: > > J. Scott, now President of the IPC said: > > 'I worked with Kathy Kleiman, and we drafted the UDRP final version with > Louis Touton and a group of other talented people, many of whom are here > today................We just want to solve a problem. That's what we're > here to do. We want to work with registries, registrars, NCUC. That's > what > we're here for. We're problem solvers. We want to solve the problem. > Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to working together in > the near future. > > Zahid Jamil BC Councillor said: > > 'First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank Kathy for the NCUC's > constructive invitation to work with goodwill. > We look forward to the sentiment continuing in the GNSO. So thank you for > that..........' > > With respect to several aspects of the IRT Solutions it seems that NCSG > and > BC may be able to find common ground. > > I am sure there must have been much discussion in the NCSG itself about > taking these positions after discussing matters with the BC and other > individuals. So Kudos to Kathy and Kostantino for achieving success for > not > letting down our discussions from Monday for which I have thanked them. > > Efforts of Alan and Cheryl to set up some of the atmosphere for the > interaction also helped. > > Also in other private discussions this evening with some ALAC reps it > seems > that there may be even more common ground possible with the BC positions. > > This sentiment seems to have created an atmosphere which may enable some > parties with divergent views reaching consensus on some aspects at least. > I > hope this interaction will also help BC, NCSG and ALAC collaborating on > other issues in the future. > > Through private meetings tomorrow leading up to the STI session I hope > this > sentiment continues. > > Will report back after tomorrows STI meeting. > > > > Sincerely, > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 > Fax: +92 21 5655026 > <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com > > 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. > >

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
by Phil Corwin Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Chinese restaurant. 37th floor Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: Scott M. McCormick <scott(a)mccormickict.com>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; Liz Williams <lizawilliams(a)mac.com>; Jim Baskin <james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 28 23:23:14 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Hey guys. Where's our lunch today? -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:54 PM To: HASSAN Ayesha Cc: Scott M. McCormick; Marilyn Cade; Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Thanks Ayesha > Dear colleagues, > > > > I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to > offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and > frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes > irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and > exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me: > > "reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden > members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with > respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus > overburdening others with one particular point of view" > > > > I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding: > > "According to the Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful > to approved positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are > required to support such positions" It seems logical to me that > Counselors "are required to support such positions" equates to voting > with the consensus and direction of the BC" > > > > Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is > helpful in someway. > > > > Best regards, > > Ayesha > > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf > Of Scott M. McCormick > Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28 > To: Marilyn Cade > Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I support Jim's suggestion as well. > > > > In response to Marilyn's comments below, > > > > 1.) I move to remove the limit's on daily posts. If we are to be > effective in our coordination, I see a limit on posts as a hinderance. > I realize we have call-ins to accomplish tasks, but as I have seen in > the last couple months (of which I have become a BC member) with a limit > of 3/day or 10/month. How does anyone expect to accomplish anything in > a timely manner? I would suggest we move to change the wording to state > something as such: > > > > "reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden > members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with > respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus > overburdening others with one particular point of view" > > > > 2.) I was not present at this mornings meeting. According to the > Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful to approved > positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are required to > support such positions" It seems logical to me that Counselors "are > required to support such positions" equates to voting with the consensus > and direction of the BC. Did I miss something? > > > > > > Scott M. McCormick > McCormick ICT International > mobile +1 443.691.2013 > scott(a)mccormickict.com > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > > > > > Actually, I'm on board with Jim's suggestion. I know that Sarah > Deutsch, his colleague had made several proposals for change, and > undoubtedly will want to ensure that they are all taken into account. > > > > Once we make changes, I'm skeptical that we will, in fact, have the time > or bandwidth to make further changes, so we need to get this right. > > > > On the needed additional changes, I find it unfortunate that we didn't > read on through the rest of the Charter, and do the final check to > ensure that stuff that has been controversial and objected to by several > members. Let me identify two problem areas that have been raised and I > have repeatedly asked to have two changes made and in writing. > > > > 1) remove the discussion on limits of number of posts. > > Explanation: the evidence of our need to work collaboratively, and in > real time, and to keep our remote members informed, we have all > collaborated on line to share information and to keep in touch. Every > member who has been helping to share information, including Mike R.; > Zahid; Marilyn and even Sarah, who isn't here can be 'sanctioned', or > even kicked off the mailing list according to that criteria/limitation > of only 3 per day/etc. > > > > I have asked repeatedly to have this changed. > > Thus, I consider this to be one of the things that should be changed. > It's a simple change. > > > > 2) the list management section needs to be cut out as well. Any > responsibility for an email list would belong in the :secretariat > service(s) which is addressed earlier. The IPC certainly took a VERY > high level approach without addressing this kind of detailed > intervention into the ability of the members to communicate. > > > > After what came out this morning in Council when one of our councilors > said that "according to the current BC Charter, councilors are not > required to vote as their constituency directs", I have one additional > change to the Charter. > > > > We need to add in a sentence that clearly states that the elected BC > Councilors are bound by the guidance of the BC membership. > > > > One more thing -- just an FYI for right now, but an important > consideration -- during the NomComm review and again in the Board > Review, there is a growing recognition of the need for recall > mechanisms. In fact, the ALAC is moving ahead with metrics for elected > reps, and even recall. > > > > Let's give serious consideration to adding that in, and getting this > charter right. CC: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > > > > From: lizawilliams(a)mac.com > To: james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Charter > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:05:51 +0000 > > Hi Jim > > > > I thought that we agreed (I asked Philip to clarify that at the end) > was that Philip would capture the few changes that were made during the > meeting; finalise version 20; send that to the list with a timetable of > moving towards a vote quite shortly, based on the timing included in the > charter itself. > > > > I urge us to move to a new structure soon so that we can stop talking > about process and get back to substantive policy work ASAP. > > > > Liz > > On 28 Oct 2009, at 04:01, Baskin, James F (Jim) wrote: > > > > Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off > discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we > still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final > vote. > > > > Jim Baskin > > Verizon > > > > > > > >

1 0

BC Charter
by Baskin, James F (Jim) Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final vote. Jim Baskin Verizon

8 9

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
by Phil Corwin Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Related question - Did we decide on the BC rep to the STI review team? And is the first STI meeting still scheduled for thursday, 5-6:30 in Astor on 36th floor? Thanks! Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; michael(a)palage.com <michael(a)palage.com>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Oct 27 22:56:22 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Indeed Marilyn. You are right. The members at the meeting agreed but the draft position will be posted to the list for input allowing members that were not in the meeting to also have the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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. From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:44 AM To: Zahid Jamil; michael(a)palage.com; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Zahid, just one clarification. Otherwise fully agree. We agreed, i think, that the members that we had to reach an agreement within the members who were in the room, and based on the emails that were being posted to the list. That's the going in position, right? We all realize that we are relying upon the earlier BC positions, but modified by the evolving situation, right? and realizing that we had to try to reach a 'rough' consensus within the meeting. ________________________________ From: zahid(a)dndrc.com To: michael(a)palage.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:35:13 +0900 Thanks for the query Michael, The BC meeting yesterday led to member’s developing a position. I would suggest that it is up to our membership which (minus one member) agreed to proposals that were discussed in the constructive session moderated by Mike R. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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. From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:21 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Zahid, Is it really constructive to advocate positions that go above and beyond the initial recommendations contained in the IRT? Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:13 PM To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Dear All, Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI. Here’s something helpful Mike R put together. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed “IP claims”) must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement: Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it). TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch – unanimous except Palage -- scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to ‘yahoo’, or ‘yahoomail’ or ‘yaho0’ or ‘yahhoo’?? We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS – mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would get a notice. GPML – VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table. PDDM Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

1 0

FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Dear All, Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI. Here's something helpful Mike R put together. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com 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. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed "IP claims") must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement: Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it). TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch - unanimous except Palage -- scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to 'yahoo', or 'yahoomail' or 'yaho0' or 'yahhoo'?? We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS - mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would get a notice. GPML - VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table. PDDM Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

7 11

FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
by Ron Andruff Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Sorry for the double posting should this email pop up twice. Important information noted below. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@dotsportllc.com] Sent: 2009-10-27 02:20 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs Importance: High Dear Colleagues, I had circulated some documentation regarding the orderly introduction of domain names prior to the Seoul meeting for the benefit of membership review. While here, we have had many discussions with the leadership and membership of the IP, ISP, ALAC, and GAC and we are finding significant support for our argument. The GAC are moving toward 'categorization', which would be a much too narrow approach, so concerned ICANN community members appear to be coalescing around our argument for 'differentiation'. This morning at the CSG meeting, I recommended that we start the process with differentiation and then, if found to be not necessary, we could then remove such a restriction. We cannot do this the other way around because once the genie is out of the bottle there is no getting her back in. Notably, the senior staff view the proposal, in relation to the gathering support for what they call 'categorization', is "not necessary" or "too late". This is extremely discomfiting. On the other hand, Board member Thomas Narten stated at the CSG meeting today that the Board is not yet sure which way to go on this. I read this to mean that senior staff is standing at the barricades pushing their view through and ignoring the community's input. Our argument is based completely on existing 'policy'. That is to say, we are noting (1) that the GNSO Final Report is not being properly implemented; (2) the Scaling the Root Report; (3) the AoC language; and (4) the BC's long-standing (9-years) position on the introduction of new gTLDs. Finally, the attached document of my comments to the GAC has now been circulated to the full membership of the GAC and ALAC, the IP and ISP leadership, as well as several board members and other key opinion-shapers in the community. In my view, we have this one chance to ensure that the new gTLD process does not become a wild, wild west on the Internet. We can be certain that there are those within our ICANN community - let alone those outside who have yet to learn (but will be happy to know) how the system can be gamed - who will take advantage of a 'no rules' names introduction. As such, I strongly urge all members to give this issue serious consideration and post comments in support of 'differentiation' language being added to the DAG v4. We are not married to the language suggested in the document, so any amendments you have in that regard are also welcome. If I can be of further assistance please contact me. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff dotSport LLC 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 <mailto:ra@dotSportLLC.com> ra(a)dotSportLLC.com <http://www.dotsportllc.com> www.dotsportllc.com

3 3

BC Business Stream Cocktail
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

BC members, colleagues from the CSG, new Council appointees are reminded they are all welcome to attend the cocktail tonight from 18.00 - 19.00 in Athenee Lounge, level 3, Lotte Hotel, Seoul. Philip

1 0