- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

New Blog Entry on Seoul Meeting
by Phil Corwin Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Fellow BC members -- my latest post on the Seoul meeting is now up at http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN-Seoul_Mixed_Messages_on_New_gTLD . Hope you find it useful. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Excellent! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:42:52 To: <mike(a)haven2.com>; <DFares(a)newscorp.com> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Sounds good to me as well and it should address the original concern that led to this proposed language. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com ---------------- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:04 AM To: Fares, David Cc: Zahid Jamil; Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 i'm with David on this one. His sentence seems like what we need, instead of all the prose; "When a member is representing the BC, they should remain faithful to approved BC positions" end of story. mikey On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Fares, David wrote: Colleagues, I am still working through the Charter. Regarding solidarity though, I suggest that we rephrase the language to ensure that when a member is representing the BC that they are faithful to approved BC positions.. I am not sure that we need the more in-depth language. Thanks, David From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:54 PM To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 7.5. Solidarity Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to be a Constituency approved position. As such, members are expected, when communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency position(s). This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency position. Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 10. Privacy of personal data The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected. Members may also decide to make such additional aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. [Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members what we mean.] 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: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious consideration. The IPC has followed this model and it works well. I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the draft. Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN community, the language remains unchanged. As Marilyn notes correctly below, instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains what the problem is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from BC positions when they speak in their personal capacity. If anyone has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity" principle without the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or privately, it should be executive committee members. Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft unchanged. No one has answered the fundamental question of whether ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or sensitive personal information (and what information that is) and how ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our BC membership. As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on jurisdiction. At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee Members should be subject to this language assuming they may have access to sensitive personal information. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Philip, thanks. a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any areas for the BC members of concern to me. I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my comments in this version. However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected positions. There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads, as we all know. It does mean that coordination are important, of course. A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers. That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year terms. In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation of a retained position, and the approach being proposed will allow flexibility to either use contracted services or services from ICANN. I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we discuss when you would envision an executive committee member 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might clear up the confusion for me on that one. I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator. I'm not sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to make judgements about other members communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies -- and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient communications. We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m. Marilyn > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100 > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 > From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be> > To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > > > I attach the latest version for discussion. > I believe we are nearly there. > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was > to date unaltered. > > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. > > Philip > 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. - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

BC charter v19
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

I attach the latest version for discussion. I believe we are nearly there. It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was to date unaltered. I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. Philip

7 9

Small edit to v19 Charter
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

I believe our Membership description may have a typo in second sentence: > 3.1 Members of the Business Constituency use the Internet to conduct business > related to electronic commerce in its broad sense. The Business Constituency > is a constituency representing customers of other companies, who provide > connectivity, domain name, Internet Protocol address and related services who > are typically members of the Contracted Parties House. I think the second sentence should read: > The Business Constituency is a constituency representing customers of > companies who provide connectivity, domain name, Internet Protocol address and > related services who are typically members of the Contracted Parties House. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 3

test
by Christopher Martin Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Sorry for the email test, but we're having issues here forwarding docs to members from the meeting. Christopher G. Martin Manager - Marketing & Advertising, ICT, Banking, Emerging Markets United States Council for International Business 1212 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (t)+1 212 703 5061 (m)+1 917 238 0902 (f)+1 212 575 0327 cgmartin(a)uscib.org<mailto:cgmartin@uscib.org> www.uscib.org<http://www.uscib.org/> View our new issue ad campaign on CNN International: www.YouTube.com/USCIB<http://www.YouTube.com/USCIB>

1 0

Really Brief RPM issues
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Possible short phrases to characterise some of the Staff Proposals for RPMs: IP Clearing House - Won't work if domain name's being cybersquatted using hyphens (spaces, hyphens, punctuation, special characters etc.) URS - We are moving from an age where cars used to go 10 miles an hour to where they can go 100 miles an hour but for car manufacturers to include seat belts remains optional/best practice. Post Delegation - Registry can turn 'blind eye' to systemic TM infringement. GPML - Gone - Businesses will HAVE TO undertake Defensive Registrations - basically PAY for unwanted domains in EVERY new gTLD. 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.

3 3

Acronyms by the score
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Hi there, Following remotely, I am tripping across Acronyms by the score. The buster has 210 in it now. Anybody know? RDT NCA http://www.andalucia.com/icann/ Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

The privacy requirements shld not exceed ICANN's own requirements. Members can decide to display their contact details, or not, in the membership list. However, elected and appointed officers or councilors, nomcomm appointees, credentials committee reps, etc., cannot choose to fail to provide contact information to members. The BC can provide a BC email address if the elected officers/appointed officers/reps prefer to do that, as the Bd does... Finally, the BC charter is MUCH more detailed than other groups charters and goes into prescription on many things others do not address. Why are we not looking at the other charters as I have asked numerous times to try to have a streamlined charter, and then move contentious items off to a post election process? Secondly, we really cannot move to 25 per cent on raising objections - let's do the math. 41 members-25 % = 10 members. there are 18 attending people/but not 18 unique entities at Seoul and three active parties following remotely and posting - David Fares, Sarah Deustch/with her company here as well, and Mikey. You must assume that that "we" are the most active of the members. So, according to V19's proposal, by moving to 25% to raise objections that would trigger a vote, we are asking for too high a threshhold to at least get an opportunity to consider a change in a draft position or ensure that the full membership considers and acclaims support, or opposition to positions. Let's keep 10% for now and debate whether to raise that at a next stage. But I will reask the question again- is the charter v19 too detailed? I would venture that the mere fact that we got up to v16 before any discussion and are even AT a v19 is a very bad "indicator". I spoke to a member of the BC recently who might be expected to have read the Charter - because that person is with an association member. That person asked me to explain the charter to them, and acknowledged that they didn't have time to study it..... I say that with the interest of supporting members needs, not to be critical. We need to try to make this a transitional charter-- if we have details that are raising the degree of concern across this number of members, then remove those areas, have a streamlined charter. Hold the elections, and creat a charter redrafting team. Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:53:57 To: <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 1024x768 Clean false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 7.5. Solidarity Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to be a Constituency approved position. As such, members are expected, when communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency position(s). This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency position. Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 10. Privacy of personal data The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected. Members may also decide to make such additional aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. [Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members what we mean.] 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: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious consideration. The IPC has followed this model and it works well. I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the draft. Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN community, the language remains unchanged. As Marilyn notes correctly below, instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains what the problem is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from BC positions when they speak in their personal capacity. If anyone has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity" principle without the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or privately, it should be executive committee members. Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft unchanged. No one has answered the fundamental question of whether ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or sensitive personal information (and what information that is) and how ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our BC membership. As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on jurisdiction. At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee Members should be subject to this language assuming they may have access to sensitive personal information. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Philip, thanks. a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any areas for the BC members of concern to me. I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my comments in this version. However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected positions. There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads, as we all know. It does mean that coordination are important, of course. A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers. That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year terms. In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation of a retained position, and the approach being proposed will allow flexibility to either use contracted services or services from ICANN. I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we discuss when you would envision an executive committee member 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might clear up the confusion for me on that one. I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator. I'm not sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to make judgements about other members communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies -- and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient communications. We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m. Marilyn > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100 > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 > From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be > To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > I attach the latest version for discussion. > I believe we are nearly there. > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was > to date unaltered. > > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. > > Philip >

1 0

IMPORTANT - Decision BC has to make on new gTLD TM issues
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

Dear All, Have spent a good 3 hours discussing these issues with the far right on the Non-Commercial SG (will update in the BC meeting tomorrow). In the meantime, as promised in the Huddle here is, a short brief to help with discussion on BC strategy in tomorrow’s meeting: Not part of the GNSO work requested in the Board letter: 1. GPML: This has been rejected by the Board and so the Board has not sent this to the GNSO for any consensus. There has been much opposition within the ICANN community to this and was the main target of criticism. It seems there also may be some opposition from the GAC. However, this leaves open the problem of defensive registration. BC has to decide what its position is to be going forward. This would not be an issue we need to decide on with respect to the GNSO working group to work on URSS and IP Clearing House as this is not part of the work assigned by the Board to the GNSO in its letter. But a general position in this regard to be communicated so that the Board is aware of our view may be an idea. 2. Post Delegation: This too has not been sent by the Board to the GNSO for any work on reaching consensus. It is currently open for public comment and the BC can make comments in this regard. The Post Delegation is not in line with the IRT Report (many reasons mentioned in earlier posts so will not repeat here). The Staff Proposal would put the interests of both TM holders and Communities at risk since once the delegation is made they would not have any recourse or rights to institute Post Delegation Disputes under this policy based on: ・ breach of representations in the gTLD application ・ breach of Registry Agreements ・ systemic breach of TMs in the gTLD as a result of omissions or lacunas in Registry Operations or where the Registry can simply turn ‘a blind eye’ to the infringements This is what the Post Delegation was initially designed for and so not having this in the Staff proposal makes the Solution effectively irrelevant. The BC needs to decide on its response to the Staff Proposal for posting of comments Work Board has asked GNSO to work/decide on: 1. IP Clearing House Staff Proposal is not as problematic as other proposals. There are a few important issues though. Here the object of the IRT was to allow IP Rights holders to voluntarily sign up their IP rights (not just TM) with a centralised database (Clearing house to validate rights). It would be mandatory for New gTLD Registries Operators to connect with the Clearing house. In case of a Sunrise the New gTLD Operator would have to provide a Sunrise registration process verified by Clearinghouse data, and incorporates a Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP). In case of a Claims Service, if a registrant applies for a domain name matches with a TM ‘identical’ to one in the IP Clearing house this will prompt a notification to the registrant of the TM and require registrant to make warranties as to the domain name being registered. IRT had recommended that ‘identical match’ mean: In this regard: (a) spaces contained within a trademark that are replaced by hyphens (and vice versa), (b) spaces, hyphens, punctuation or special characters contained within a trademark that are spelt out with appropriate words describing it (Including but not limited to ~ @ # ! § % ^ (c) and &.), and (c) punctuation or special characters contained within a trademark that are omitted or replaced by spaces or hyphens will be considered identical matches. In the Staff Proposal identical match’ means: ‘“identical” is defined to mean that the domain name consists of the complete and identical textual element of the trademark.’ As can be seen the Staff definition of identical match is very narrow. BC needs to decide whether to advocate IRT definition or also seek inclusion of Typosquatting and/or extend match to visual, aural? In the Staff Proposal Pre‐registration complaint process in URS is not included. BC needs to decide whether such pre-registration for use in URS is necessary. Not clear whether IP Clearing house connectivity with New gTLD Registry Operators is mandatory or not. 2. URS: The Staff proposal (different from the IRT) only recommends this as a ‘best practice’ and not mandatory for a New gTLD. Staff suggest this is only an interim solution “until and if policy development work in this area is undertaken by the GNSO which may adopt this or a similar system for use by all registries”. The link of the URS of pre-registration in the IP Clearing house have been removed. The IRT had suggested a fee be imposed on registrant to file an answer if more than 26 domains are at issue. Staff Proposal removes this requirement. Notification under IRT of URS was supposed to be by email. Staff Proposal includes the requirement of paper as well as fax notification in addition to email. Only remedy: “that domain name shall be suspended for the balance of the registration period. It will point to a site with a standardized post stating that it was suspended as a result of a URS proceeding. The Whois record shall be revised to reflect that the domain name is on hold and cannot be transferred for the life of the registration.” This may lead to the same domain name being put back into the pool and snapped up by cybersquatters. BC needs to decide whether transfer of the domain name to the Complainant (for a fee and/or other conditions) is to be advocated. Also should BC advocate this be a mandatory and permanent Rights Protection Mechanism. It may also be an idea to advocate that all these RPMs be reviewed periodically. Once new gTLDs are launched there will be more data to enable revisiting these RPMs for improvement and possibly addressing problems not earlier foreseeable. Getting late now so will post more if necessary in morning. 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.

2 1

Webpost on GNSO Process for Trademark Issues
by Phil Corwin Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

FYI, I have written about the task facing the GNSO on TM protection issues at http://www.internetcommerce.org/GNSO_ICANN_Board_Charge_Trademark_Protectio… Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 1