Hi Susan,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think we are on the same page,
naturally, as we have had much the same experience with many prior sunrise
processes.
To clarify, we are not opposing the Clearinghouse as framed. Something
is better than nothing. We are suggesting it should have much broader
applicability, and thus usefulness, both as to the scope of marks allowed into
the database, and the further use of the database throughout the life of new
gTLD registries. We are suggesting that a feasibility study be done, based on
the TMC as framed, as compared to also requiring broader applicability, before
a final decision is made. We are suggesting the costs should be borne by ICANN
and its registries and registrars, who benefit by far the most from the TMC as
framed, and not borne by TM owners and other registrants, except for a minimal
registration fee to submit their public records into the database.
Zahid and I hope we have consensus within the BC for these
positions, based on our written consensus statements of a month or so ago.
Please advise if you do not support any of this.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:41 PM
To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your
review
Importance: High
Hello Zahid,
I have briefly reviewed the latest draft of the STI report and I
am concerned about the level of consensus that the BC is supporting on the IP
Clearinghouse in general. In Section 1.1 and 5.1 you have noted a
“Rough Consensus” for each principle. We should change the
designation of our support of the IP Clearinghouse to Unanimous Consensus.
I am concerned that if we do not support the IP Clearinghouse
as it is designed for the Sunrise period we will end up with no standard
process in the new gTld rollout. A standard process across all gTld’s
is vital to a company like Facebook. In my experience in previous gTld
rollouts and ccTld rollouts numerous hours and outside counsel fees were
expended to understand and participate in the Sunrise periods. I firmly
believe that the IP Clearinghouse will ease this burden going forward for
Facebook.
In the BC meeting in Seoul I argued strenuously to extend the
use of the IP Clearinghouse to post sunrise period but did not realize that
this would bring the BC to this Rough Consensus opinion.
I will still argue for the use of the IP Clearinghouse in the
post Sunrise period but if we lose the battle to have it implemented at all we
have nothing to build upon in the future.
The IP Clearinghouse is vital to the Sunrise process and would I
urge others on the list to rethink the BC’s stance on it a Unanimous Consensus
is our best protection at this point in the process.
Best regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Inc.
1601 S. California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Phone - 650 485-6064
Cell - 650 387 3904
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain
information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or
other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy,
or retransmit the email or its contents."
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:48 AM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your
review
Importance: High
FYI.
Mike and me are drafting a minority report based upon existing BC positions
culminating in the consensus at the Seoul meetings and comments from the list.
Unfortunately it seems we will probably have one day to submit this. We will be
able to post the draft by tomorrow morning and look forward to comments
tomorrow and will at day end submit to the STI.
Comments today so we can use them in our draft would be appreciated and would
help speed matters up.
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
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink
***
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@icann.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:30:23 -0800
To: 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Dear
All,
Thank
you for a very productive call today. Attached for your review is the
fourth draft of the STI Report, which attempts to pick up our discussions
today.
I
believe we are very close to a final version of this the report and would appreciate
your comments or revisions by the close of business today, so that I can
prepare the final report tomorrow morning. Also, please send
your minority reports by tomorrow morning to ensure inclusion in the version
that will be circulated to the GNSO Council. As discussed, if you
need more time to draft a minority report, you would need to send to me next
week, so that it can be forwarded to the Board after the GNSO Council vote (if
successful) next Thursday.
Best
Regards,
Margie
_____________
Margie
Milam
Senior
Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________