Agree absolutely with Sarah’s comments.
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 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax:
+92 21 35655026
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 Deutsch,
Sarah B
Sent: 18 July 2010 13:41
To: Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com
Cc: jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com;
bc-GNSO@icann.org
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
I'm not opposed
to polling members on this issue. I can understand that many of
Phil's members who are in the domain name business may see business
opportunities from the introduction of new gTLDs. They and others who
expressed concern do not own a well known brand or have widespread
trademark infringement problems. Those who object have different business
interests and protecting corporate brands and consumers in the
new gTLD spaces is not on their list of priorities. I respect that.
However, ICANN
designated trademark protection as one of the overarching issues surrounding
the rollout and pledged that these issues would be adequately addressed in the
DAG. I'm not aware of any major brand owners, including the IPC members
participating on the IRT, who are happy with the diluted trademark
protections currently contained in DAG 4. I would hope even members
without trademark concerns, should respect the interests of BC members who have
such concerns and allow them to express those. Our BC GNSO councilors
have consistently advocated for these protections on our behalf. The BC
already submitted consistent comments in the past, including on DAG 3. Ron
tried to keep much of the DAG 4 comments identical to the language
to the DAG 3 draft. I'm sure Ron is open to receiving additional
constructive edits on tone and substance (e.g., Mike R's helpful suggestion to
delete reference to the GPML since that appears to be dead in the water).
I'm hopeful that
we can find a consructive way to move forward given the importance of this
issue to so many BC members. We've heard from those raising
concerns, but we've also heard from AT&T, News Corp, Mike
Rodenbaugh, NetChoice, Verizon and RNA Partners weighing
in supporting the comments. I would urge others to weigh in on
this as well.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil
Corwin
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:48 PM
To: 'michaelc@traveler.com'; 'mike@haven2.com'
Cc: 'jb7454@att.com'; 'randruff@rnapartners.com';
'ffelman@markmonitor.com'; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org'
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
Given
the diversity of opinion within the BC, as well as the fact that other members
appear to have broader concerns than those I raised, I would again suggest that
a poll should be taken of BC members to take the Constituency's temperature and
determine if there is any consensus for the proposed position statement.
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:
Michael Castello [mailto:michaelc@traveler.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 07:04 PM
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>
Cc: Phil Corwin; BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) <jb7454@att.com>; Ron
Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; frederick felman
<ffelman@markmonitor.com>; bc-GNSO@icann.org <bc-GNSO@icann.org>
Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
I agree
with both Phil and Mikey. There was certainly a lot of freedom early on with
the internet and closing ranks on the concerns of trademark holders and new
entities were, over time, clearly needed. The name space was allowed to
flourish because it was so available to everyone. We need to make sure that
these regulations, while needed, do not become too cumbersome to new
participants. Everyone needs to be invited to the party.
Michael
Castello
CEO/President
Castello
Cities Internet Network, Inc.
--
Saturday,
July 17, 2010, 5:39:34 AM, you wrote:
|
i am in Phil's
camp on this. several years ago i started referring to myself as
"a member of the business wing of the Business Constituency" just
to make it clear that i'm not keen on our strident views with regard to
rights protections and cyber-security. of course
cyber-crime is important, but folks like Bruce Schneier make an extremely
compelling case that there needs to be a culture of security in which all
participants are active and aware rather than creating a culture of passive
consumers being "protected" by ever-increasingly intrusive
"authorities" like governments and ICANN. of course
trademark violations are unacceptable -- but to make this our signature
issue, to take our position beyond even those of the IPC, and leaving *small*
business owners defenseless in the face of large corporate brand-owners,
leaves me continuing to feel disenfranchised (much the way i feel
disenfranchised by the extreme politics in my country -- where the heck do
moderates hang out??). i would love
to see the BC develop a positive message (based on positive positions) that
truly reflect the needs of businesses large and small rather than recycling
these views from our reactionary past. i would also
love to get out of the continuing role of being an apologist for our somewhat
quirky positions. haarrrumph! :-) so, just to be
on record, i do not support these comments on DAGv4. sorry about
the rant. thanks for taking the time to craft these notes Phil, mikey On Jul 16,
2010, at 7:11 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Ron (and other
BC members who contacted me to ask that I provide alternative URS language): I appreciate
the request, as I appreciate the hard work put in by Ron and Sarah on the
draft. That said, a
few word changes will not suffice to alter ICA's dissent, as we have an
entirely different perspective. We represent individuals and companies with
substantial investments in domain portfolios. They view domains in the same
way that most of you (and we) view trademarks -- as an intangible asset with
substantial value. When a trademark rights protection is proposed it might be
useful to ask whether you would be willing to have one of your
trademarks suspended, or forfeited, on the basis of what is on the table. If
not, then don't expect registrants to embrace it. In no way do we
condone trademark infringement, but proposed responses to it need to
assure basic due process. If a
majority wills it then the BC is within its rights to proffer a
reworking of the same positions it has articulated on prior occasions,
and it should expect essentially the same results -- especially after BC
members participated in an STI process that reworked the
IRTrecommendations, and the STI's work was embraced by the GNSO and
approved by the Board. If ICANN staff have significantly altered the
STI's consensus recommendations then that certainly should be raised, but
otherwise the rights protections for new gTLDs have been pretty much
baked into the DAG. Does anyone really think they will be reopened in any
significant way? As regards the
specifics of the URS provision, we cannot agree that the URS should have the
same substantive standard as the UDRP. The URS was proposed by the
IRT as reserved for "obvious", "no brainer"
rights disputes, and was originally proposed with a higher evidentiary
standard to distinguish URS cases from UDRPs. We don't think the
BC's credibility on trademark matters is enhanced when it consistently
articulates a harder line than that of the IPC, which conceived of and
oversaw the IRT. As for urging that the URS lead to a domain transfer and not
just a suspension -- again, this goes beyond the IRT recommendation
and would likewise blur the distinction between the URS and UDRP. Finally, we
find the discussion of the "impact" test for a finding of RDNH in
the URS to be confusing -- but we do believe that if a complainant advances
deliberate falsehoods with the intent of having a favorable impact on
its complaint then it is clearly guilty of attempting to abuse the available
system. Beyond the
URS, our only other comment on the rights protection language is to note our
strong questioning of a TM Clearinghouse regime in which an "identical
match" is defined as "typographical variations". Identical
means identical, not variations. Variations to what degree? Having a
trademark in one word doesn't provide a right to fire warning shots at tens
of thousands of possible variants of that word, multiple degrees of
separation away from it. If you're going to propose that variations be
encompassed then it really is incumbent to articulate some defining limits on
that notion - "we know it when we see it" is really not adequate
assurance for registrants. And, of course, these issues become even more
problematic for dictionary words that are trademarked for various purposes.
Please let's remember that in most instances infringement can't just be
determined by the name of a domain but requires a look at how it is being
used. Finally, to
note an area of agreement -- we share the concern that
ICANN devotes inadequate resources to compliance, and indeed in
Brussels we suggested publicly that it earmark a meaningful portion of
revenues from new gTLD applications to that end. Summing up, we
would have to oppose the URS regime that the majority of the BC seems to
favor as providing inadequate assurance of due process to registrants,
and we think the overall position on rights protection is backwards looking
given that the STI train has left the station. Again, this does not mean
we are unsympathetic to the concerns of rights holders. Throughout the past
18 months we have advocated comprehensive UDRP reform that would address
the concerns of all parties across the entire gTLD space, and we
continue to believe that a good faith collaboration could produce positive changes
that could be put in place in tandem with the opening of new gTLDs. Regards to
all, Philip 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 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF
(ATTSI) [jb7454@att.com] Sent: Friday, July 16,
2010 3:36 PM To: Ron Andruff;
frederick felman; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Thanks Ron and Sarah.
AT&T supports filing comments and I like how you’ve updated them.
While I was not involved in the original BC comments, I would note that
you could add a reference to the recommendation in the Economic Study that it
may be wise for ICANC to continue its practice of introducing new gTLDs in
discrete, limited rounds. Jeff Brueggeman AT&T Public Policy (202) 457-2064 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, July 16,
2010 12:34 PM To: 'frederick
felman'; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Thanks to Mark Monitor and AIM for your notes of
support for the circulated draft. I encourage other members to give the doc a quick read.
While it is several pages long, please note that it is the same
document we submitted for DAGv3 so what we are asking is for you to review
the redlines and give your comments/amendments. To that end, Phil
Corwin, can you send your suggested URS text asap? Thanks again everyone for taking a moment to review the
DAGv4 draft comments. RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New
York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 From: frederick felman
[mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com] Sent: Friday, July 16,
2010 12:21 PM To: Ron
Andruff; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Importance: High MarkMonitor
support the BC comments to DAGv4. On 7/15/10
7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote: Dear Members, Further to my reminder
earlier this week regarding the need for a BC public comment on DAGv4, Sarah
Deutsch and I have developed a draft for member review and comment.
Effectively, we have taken the BC’s DAGv3 comments and added/amended
based on (1) staff having largely ignored our comments in DAGv2 and v3; and
(2) utilized subsequent information that has come available in the interim
(e.g., the latest economic study). FYI, Sarah drafted the RPM material and I
took responsibility for the other elements. We ask that members review
and comment on the document at your earliest convenience, so that we can meet
the submission deadline of Wednesday, July 21st. Sorry for the late
posting, but unfortunately with summer holidays and all, a few things are slipping
between the cracks... Thanks in advance for your
soonest input. Kind regards, RA Ronald N.
Andruff President RNA Partners,
Inc. 220 Fifth
Avenue New York, New
York 10001 + 1 212 481
2820 ext. 11 - - - - - - -
- - phone 651-647-6109
fax
866-280-2356 handle OConnorStP
(ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) |