Maybe I misunderstood but did you mean the BC focusing on the difference between the BC minority view and the staff? Ie the gap between our interests and what staff has put out. 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 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. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Jon Nevett <jon@nevett.net> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:46:07 To: <zahid@dndrc.com> Cc: Phil Corwin<pcorwin@butera-andrews.com>; 'Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com'<Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com>; Sarah B Deutsch<sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; 'owner-bc-gnso@icann.org'<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; BC Secretariat<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4 Zahid: With that said, I would suggest focusing on any changes between what the community recommended in STI and what the staff added to DAG4. Those changes would be the ones that have the best chance of being reversed. Thanks. Jon On Jun 22, 2010, at 3:33 AM, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Just a point of clarification that may help. BC did not unanimously support the STI outcome. The BC had in fact a minority statement in the report that differed substantively from the views of others.
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
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.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:33:04 +0000 To: 'Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com'<Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com>; 'zahid@dndrc.com'<zahid@dndrc.com> Cc: 'sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com'<sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; 'owner-bc-gnso@icann.org'<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; 'bc-gnso@icann.org'<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
I believe that the BC risks its credibility by proposing to reopen STI positions that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council and subsequently by the ICANN Board and that are now included in DAGv4. Do we really want to revive and revisit the divisive debates of 2009? Having said that, the ultimate relief for rights owners across all gTLDs can come from the balanced UDRP PDP that Sarah opposes. That process, started now, could result in reforms being put in place coincident with the addition of new gTLDs at the end of 2011/early 2012. Finally, there must be some mechanism to assure uniform application by all UDRP arbitration providers as in its absence there will be increasing divergence and resultant forum shopping. 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: Frederick Felman <Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com> To: zahid@dndrc.com <zahid@dndrc.com> Cc: Sarah B Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; Phil Corwin; BC Secretariat <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 22 02:41:03 2010 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
We stand with Zahid and Sarah in support of the WIPO remarks and agree with Zahid's comments below.
Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733
(please excuse any content I might blame on the size of the keyboard & screen including but not limited to typos)
On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:45 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote:
I wonder about multi lateral organisations entering into a contract for providing service with a not for profit.
In regards the URS, having served on both the IRT and STI, my views are well known. The URS is the only REAL Rights Protection Mechanism in the new gTLD environment. (TM Clearinghouse not being an RPM). It is only a Post launch RPM. Not a preventive RPM leaving the issue of defensive registration unresolved (also acknowledged by the Economic Study). The URS does not therefore solve the defensive registration problem and makes TM owners pay for URS as opposed to incurring the cost of defensive registration. In either case TM Owners subsidise new gTLDs for no economic benefit in return.
To top it all the URS is merely a temporary suspension (no transfer being made available to a successful Complainant). At the end of a year the domain name pops back up (wackamo/revolving door) forcing the TM Owner to possibly paying again to suspend the domain.
Also the difference in the Rapidity of the UDRP and URS is .....wait for this..... ONE day less!
Not really Rapid!
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
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.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:00:08 -0400 To: Phil Corwin<pcorwin@butera-andrews.com>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
Given the strong levels of concerns raised about the DAG from many parties, I don't think we can characterize the current remedies as having consensus, much less remarkable consensus. Re-opening the UDRP is a dangerous exercise that could wind up being a double edge sword.. Without a workable UDRP, IP owners will by default turn to suing registrars.
In any event, it would be helpful if others from the BC could weigh in on whether the BC c an support WIPO's comments.
Thanks,
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:57 AM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'bc-gnso@icann.org' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
ICA would object to endorsing that portion of the letter that seeks to reopen the URS debate and undo the remarkable consensus achieved by the STI at the direction of the GNSO. Also, while I do not fully understand their last point, WIPO seems to regard the UDRP as something they control rather than an ICANN consensus policy they facilitate as arbitrator, and has opposed the community reexamining it after 10 years of experience. The RAPWG, on the other hand, has recommended a balanced PDP focused on UDRP reform. ICA believes that placing all UDRP providers under standard contract should be a key component of such reform and that doing so would enhance uniform implementation that would benefit both complainants and registrants. 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@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Mon Jun 21 08:17:30 2010 Subject: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
All,
I'm passing along WIPO's recent excellent and succint comments to ICANN on continuing problems in the DAG v. 4. I would propose that the BC support these comments as they directly affect the availability of effective remedies for businesses to protect their brands and consumers from confusion after the rollout of new gTLDs.
See: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann160610.pdf.
Sarah