Zahid, I am not sure I understand your last paragraph here, who are you sensing is not supportive? You are certainly and gratefully supported by the BC, for your absolutely heroic efforts this week at brokering compromise on these issues – not to mention all the time and effort you spent on the IRT. It is noticed by many other people in the community this week, and I have not heard any negative criticism other than for one or two of our specific proposals, which naturally must be expected. Still there is widespread optimism that these issues will be resolved in the next few months, even if not by the December 14 artificial deadline set by the Board.

It has been a great week of incremental progress, and you are a great asset for the BC. Keep it up, I remain available always to support you.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:57 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations

Dear All,

Met with ALAC reps today for an hour before the STI meeting. We found common ground on nearly all essential BC positions. (facilitated by Alan – ALAC Liaison).

The actual STI meeting took place in a very conducive atmosphere. The unreasonably short time line set by the Board was discussed. My feeling is we may have spent too much time on process (40 mins). Jeff Neuman, Jon Nevett and I voiced our desire to get on with the substantive discussions. Issues were listed and it was decided that we would focus on them in our discussions over calls. The group has asked staff to provide information on whether there will be support available for a face to face meeting as several members feel some of these issues may not be solvable otherwise.

After the meeting I spent an hour with NCSG and ALAC. We seem to have common ground on several of the essential BC positions. NCSG requested these not be discussed publicly yet. They are also attempting to see if I can meet with Wendy tomorrow (she as absent due to her Board meetings). The meeting with her will probably be important in ensuring that the common ground seemingly achieved is maintained.

One issue that Registrar and Registry reps did not support was the notion of a post launch IP Claims service. However, this is on the issues listed to be discussed.

On another note my sense is that my outreach and attempts to discuss matters with ALAC and NCSG does not seem to attract any support (in fact in some respects I sense the opposite). This is a cause for concern.

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.

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:14 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations

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.