I think we spent quite a bit of time working through this, Mike, but it may have continued on after you had to leave, but I think that in some cases, we did want to get some stuff identified. Remember that we have two challenges. IF we never say we wanted something, even if it falls off the table early, we aren't then faced with being told that we never said that we wanted XXXXXXXXX. Marilyn S. Cade 202 360 1196 or 202 251 6787 mscade@att.net or marilynscade@hotmail.com From: michael@palage.com To: zahid@dndrc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:21:14 -0400 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 www.jamilandjamil.com 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 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com 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 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

Hello everyone IF these elements are where there is consensus THEN I suggest we move rapidly to supporting a statement that says now these issues are resolved (which are all post implementation commitments for potential applicants and NOT barrier issues to the application process), the new TLD application process can proceed. Note that the effect of these supposedly mandatory requirements will not take effect for at least another 12 months, presupposing that an application process opens in Q1 2010. Arguing to put in place any other impediments in the new TLD application process unfairly and unreasonably enables a group to hold a process hostage, at the expense of other legitimate stakeholders. Note that these so called mandatory requirements have not been accurately costed, do not apply to existing legacy registries and, as such, will attach burdens to new applicants which are not clearly articulated. I doubt that anyone who supports the opening of the new TLD application process will ask for this detail to be provided in full in advance of the application process. That would only cause further unnecessary delays. Liz On 28 Oct 2009, at 02:21, Michael D. Palage wrote:

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 www.jamilandjamil.com

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 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

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 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

Zahid, just one clarification. Otherwise fully agree. We agreed, i think, that the members that we had to reach an agreement within the members who were in the room, and based on the emails that were being posted to the list. That's the going in position, right? We all realize that we are relying upon the earlier BC positions, but modified by the evolving situation, right? and realizing that we had to try to reach a 'rough' consensus within the meeting. From: zahid@dndrc.com To: michael@palage.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:35:13 +0900 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 www.jamilandjamil.com 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 www.jamilandjamil.com 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 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com 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 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com 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 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 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 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

wow! i just tuned into the Twitter stream about ICANN (i kinda forgot for a while). LOTS of posts! here's a link if you want to follow along; http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23icann i just read that Chuck Gomes is the new GNSO chair. i think that's very cool. i like working with Chuck a lot and have nothing but the best wishes for him as he takes on that role. lots more news on the Twitter feed. i recommend it to all... mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)