Zahid Thanks for your ongoing efforts and dedication to serving the BC on this STI project. There¹s an expression that goes, ³Don¹t let the perfect be the enemy of the Good.² To this I would add, ³Especially don¹t push for perfect if that will help your opponents to kill-off what good there is.² Let me be more specific. By noting our Clearinghouse concerns as a ³Minority Position², the BC is depriving the STI Report of showing ³Unanimous Consensus² about the threshold question of whether to have any Clearinghouse mechanism in Sunrise periods. Here¹s why that¹s bad for the BC: Opponents of IP rights protection (even those on Staff and Board) will note the lack of consensus in arguing that the Clearinghouse should not be required for new gTLDs. After all, didn¹t Staff cite the lack of consensus among the IP community when they rejected the GPML? My recommendation:
I think we should enable ³Unanimous Consensus² for at least 3 critical items in the Clearinghouse Table of the STI report (1.1, 2.3, and 5.1) For those rows, let¹s note our concerns without calling them ³Minority Views². Maybe we move those 3 concerns/commetnts to the bottom of the table? Apart from those 3 items, I think we can leave our other concerns under Minority Views column.
P.S. I heard from one of my member companies about this (AOL-TW), which prompted me to return to the suggestion I made on 2-Dec:
We could agree that the Clearinghouse has a very limited benefit just a way to cut costs for TM owners having to monitor multiple parallel sunrise periods. But that¹s ALL it is, so we should neither consider nor accept this Clearinghouse mechanism as the required solution for defensive registrations.
Again, thanks for what you¹re doing, Zahid. (and please avoid the street markets there in Pakistan for awhile) --Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 12/8/09 10:26 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote:
Dear Members,
Here are my edits to the STI Recommendations. It seems on the Clearinghouse BC finds itself in the minority but have stated positions for the record.
The IPC is of the view that they should let the Clearinghouse through as it stands in the Recommendation. Since BC position is in the minority this seems as the likely result.
ISPC has been absent from the STI proceedings.
Am currently under heavy fire from Ry/Rr on the list for my edits they want to push the edits out to the bottom of the document.
Zahid Jamil