Hi Phil,
Re the transfer option for the URS, why has ICA’s position changed
since the BC’s Seoul meeting?
Zahid and I do not know why the IPC and others are caving in to
a compromise that is likely to do very little to alleviate the problem of
cybersquatting in new gTLDs, particularly when we (Zahid especially) worked so
hard to get important concessions from so many parties along the way. To see
them discarded at the end for no reason has been a tremendous disappointment
for us, and we believe should be very disappointing for all members, including
the ICA.
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 Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:11 PM
To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your
review
I
very much appreciate the fact that the BC designated me in Seoul to serve
as an alternate delegate to the STI-RT, despite the well known ICA differences
with the IRT, and with the BC position on its work methodology and
product.
That
said, and for the record, the ICA does not agree with the BC position as
regards the work of the STI-RT.
We have no specific disagreement with the BC minority
position regarding the Trademark Clearinghouse. But we would note that the BC
has registered 13 separate minority positions in regard to a proposal that the
IPC has not registered a single objection to -- and wonder how it has come
about that a constituency that is supposed to represent the broad interests of
businesses conducted via the Internet has arrived at harder line positions on
trademark issues than those of the constituency devoted to IP
interests. (In comparison, only one other minority position was filed, on a
single issue, by the RySG.)
We strongly dissent in regard to the BC position that the URS
should provide a means to transfer a domain. The IRT proposed the URS as a
supplement to the UDRP which, in exchange for a less expensive and expedited
process, would lead to suspension of a domain rather than a transfer. Again,
the BC is seeking to expand upon a proposal that the IPC has accepted. The ICA
is not opposed to the consideration of an expedited, fast track UDRP -- so long
as it that occurs within the context of a comprehensive UDRP reform PDP, rather
than through a perversion of the limited scope of Supplemental Rules as has
been proposed by the CAC and is anticipated from WIPO.
Thank you for consideration of our views.
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 Zahid Jamil
[zahid@dndrc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your
review
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
_____________