Hi Susan,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I think we are on the same page, naturally, as we have had much the same experience with many prior sunrise processes.

To clarify, we are not opposing the Clearinghouse as framed.  Something is better than nothing.  We are suggesting it should have much broader applicability, and thus usefulness, both as to the scope of marks allowed into the database, and the further use of the database throughout the life of new gTLD registries.  We are suggesting that a feasibility study be done, based on the TMC as framed, as compared to also requiring broader applicability, before a final decision is made.  We are suggesting the costs should be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars, who benefit by far the most from the TMC as framed, and not borne by TM owners and other registrants, except for a minimal registration fee to submit their public records into the database.

Zahid and I hope we have consensus within the BC for these positions, based on our written consensus statements of a month or so ago.  Please advise if you do not support any of this.

Hello Zahid,

I have briefly reviewed the latest draft of the STI report and I am concerned about the level of consensus that the BC is supporting on the IP Clearinghouse in general.   In Section 1.1 and 5.1 you have noted a “Rough Consensus”  for each principle.   We should change the designation of our support of the IP Clearinghouse to Unanimous Consensus.    I am concerned that if we do not support the IP Clearinghouse as it is designed for the Sunrise period we will end up with no standard process in the new gTld rollout.   A standard process across all gTld’s is vital to a company like Facebook.  In my experience in previous gTld rollouts and ccTld rollouts numerous hours and outside counsel fees were expended to understand and participate in the Sunrise periods.  I firmly believe that the IP Clearinghouse will ease this burden going forward for Facebook.

In the BC meeting in Seoul I argued strenuously to extend the use of the IP Clearinghouse to post sunrise period but did not realize that this would bring the BC to this Rough Consensus opinion. 

I will still argue for the use of the IP Clearinghouse in the post Sunrise period but if we lose the battle to have it implemented at all we have nothing to build upon in the future. 

The IP Clearinghouse is vital to the Sunrise process and would I urge others on the list to rethink the BC’s stance on it a Unanimous Consensus is our best protection at this point in the process.

Best regards,

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 ***