Hi Mary,
The full "tracked changes" version is very useful - tx you! Let me
share in case others want the full color and comparison
experience...
Best,
Kathy
On 3/30/2015 2:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hi Kathy, sure thing – I’ve sent it to you separately as
it’s now a pretty huge and colorful document, so the chairs
had thought it might be more helpful for the WG to have a
somewhat cleaner version on hand for this week. If what I
just sent to you looks a bit too psychedelic as a result, it
may be easier to view the changes by doing a direct
comparison between the document sent out for the call last
week and the latest version sent out earlier today (though
that may depend on your computer settings and programs).
If other WG members would also like a copy of the full
“tracked changes" version, please let me know.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior
Policy Director
Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
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)