Tx Mary, much to discuss tomorrow. In the meantime, would it be
possible to get a full redline of the draft document from last week
to this week -- both the inserts and the deletions? I think there
was a lot of text deleted and it would be go to be able to review it
easily....
Tx!
Kathy
On 3/30/2015 1:28 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to
us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement
to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to
describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the
TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples
(i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a
corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting
either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate
officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over
issues such as parity and the need to have the request
originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of
the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the
case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the
call tomorrow.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy
Director
Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Hi Mary and All,
I would like to point out that the discussion in Request
Templates has moved a past the current draft language in
II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for
someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language
being proposed last week is/was "authorized legal
representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working
for the company or as outside counsel.
It would of course be appropriate, for those
businesses too small to have counsel to have the language
(that is newly included), "or corporate officer with
signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal
entity."
So the proposed language as we were discussing it
last week should be:
c) Signed by the
trademark owner (where an individual), the
authorized legal representative and counsel of the
trademark owner
(e.g. licensed attorney handling the
alleged infringement), or corporate officer with
signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal
entity).
Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust
to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust
with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed -
a proper authority for accountability!
Best,
Kathy
On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary
Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31
March is as follows:
Roll call/updates to SOI
Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework
document (see attachment)
Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure
framework document (see second attachment)
Discuss remaining issues concerning draft
Disclosure framework and Category F (if time
permits)
Next steps/next meeting
Please note that for ease of review, the Annex
has been saved – and is being circulated as – a
separate document. In this version, staff has
attempted to rephrase (without changing the
meaning or substance) of some of the language that
appeared as shorter-form text in the original
draft framework. We have also inserted two
comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft
Disclosure framework document, this version
accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at
the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly,
of the following:
The details to be disclosed about the
identity of the Requestor, including who can
be a Signatory: this version includes the
recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed
by Kathy, with the exception that an option to
replace the specific senior titles for a
Signatory with the concept of an authorized
corporate officer is offered.
The grounds for refusal to disclose in
III.C: this version incorporates
suggestions from the last WG call and adds the
language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary
Wong
Senior
Policy Director
Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names &
Numbers (ICANN)