Zahid and others
If the BC membership wants to
advocate positions that are above and beyond the original IRT recommend –
more power to you.
If Ron wants to revive a concept
that was dead and buried years ago – more power to him.
As a small business owner, I
need to focus my time and energies on efforts that have a snow ball’s
chance of hell of actually making a difference.
I just hope the membership is
not disappointed when those aspects of their overzealous requests get ignored.
My last post on the topic. I
will just make my minority viewpoint made when the option presents itself.
Best regards,
Michael
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:35 PM
To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'BC gnso'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
Thanks for the query Michael,
The BC meeting yesterday led to member’s developing a
position. I would suggest that it is up to our membership which (minus
one member) agreed to proposals that were discussed in the constructive session
moderated by Mike R.
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
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: Michael D. Palage
[mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:21 AM
To: 'Zahid Jamil'; 'BC gnso'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
Zahid,
Is it really constructive to
advocate positions that go above and beyond the initial recommendations
contained in the IRT?
Best regards,
Michael
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid
Jamil
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:13 PM
To: 'BC gnso'
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
Dear All,
Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI.
Here’s something helpful Mike R put together.
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
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: Mike Rodenbaugh
[mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM
To: 'Zahid Jamil'
Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'
Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
TM Clearinghouse:
1.
Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory.
2.
TM notices (misnamed “IP claims”) must be
mandatory:
a. All
applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC,
regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter
b. If
applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC,
then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation,
if domain is registered then TM owner is notified
c. TM
owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for
domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as
determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a
notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option.
d. Domain
applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or
email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every
domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs.
URS:
1. Process
as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries
a.
Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly
replicated in URS
2. Successful
complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed
within 90 days from date of URS decision.
a.
Successful complainant must also have option to
have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then
indefinitely flagged
b.
Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that
if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice.
3. Complainant
abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP.
4. Meaningful
appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so
we cannot comment.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From: Mike Rodenbaugh
[mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM
To: 'Zahid Jamil'
Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'
Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for
preliminary statement:
Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it).
TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND
mandatory IP claims, POST-launch – unanimous except Palage -- scope
of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to ‘yahoo’, or
‘yahoomail’ or ‘yaho0’ or ‘yahhoo’??
We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that
is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the
notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also
algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the
notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every
registration that occurs.
URS – mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous
except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway);
substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural
elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant
abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful
appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so
we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer
the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS
decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension,
recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would
get a notice.
GPML – VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it
should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving
it on the table.
PDDM
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104