While I generally support the Minority Report, I want to raise one item just for awareness and consideration. Re the suggestion on page one that the "costs of developing and operating the TMC must be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars": I think that in the past that business has understood that there would also need to be a cost based fee that would be paid by trademark holders who decide to use the service. I think that we need to be pragmatic and realistic about recognizing that there will be a fee for trademark holders, and focus on making it 'cost based'. I agree that the TMC will also benefit registries, of course. The last sentence under Who Pays? does indicate that the costs would be shared. I think that we need to be very pragmatic about recognizing that costs have to be shared, but that the trademark fees must be "cost based" fees. I especially appreciate that the minority report makes it clear that defensive registrations remain a serious problem with the present lack of safeguards. typo: Under What does a Match mean? Second sentence, : However, the STI.... ... II. The URS I wonder if we might change the use of the term 'mean spirited'. Perhaps as business people, we might just say that the BC supports the ALAC representative's comments that object to 'forcing successful URS complainants... etc. I like the proposal for a feasibility study. We might want to make it clear that we consider this a 'fast track' feasibility study, so that it is not rejected out of hand as an effort to delay any progression on new gTLDs. Thanks for the hard work of the BC team. Marilyn Cade From: berrycobb@infinityportals.com To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; bc-gnso@icann.org CC: Margie.Milam@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:14:09 -0800 I support the BC Minority Position as attached with only one small edit. Page 2, What does a Match Mean? 2nd Sentence.... However, he STI recommends ß should it be “the STI recommends”? Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 07:14 To: bc-gnso@icann.org Cc: 'Margie Milam' Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report Attached please find the Minority Statement that Zahid and I have drafted, based upon the earlier consensus document agreed by the BC, further comments from Members during this STI process, and our own negotiation and participation efforts within the STI team. I also include Zahid’s version 1.0, which I have edited drastically due to focus, length and repetition. He has not had a chance to review my version 2.0 yet, either, as he is hopefully asleep right now. Margie, this is tentative, subject to modification upon formal review of our membership, but Zahid and I believe it represents consensus of the BC. We ask you to please hold it, and do not submit the Initial Report to the Council, until at least 3pm PST today, to allow our members the chance to offer comments to me and Zahid, for possible further editing today. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com