RE: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies if it felt like I was thinking of any BC member. I understand the 
concern that you had about the lack of notice, Phil, and as you know, agreed 
that there was not an effective notice process on this within the BC. 
See you later today... 



From: pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; lizawilliams@xxxxxxx; zahid@xxxxxxxxx
CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:41:29 -0400
Subject: RE: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: 
[Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant 
Guidebook Version 3










I don't believe that references to  "overwrought pounding on the table by a 
small extremely vocal set of players!" are helpful. As a BC member who tried 
and failed to secure one place within the IRT
 for an expert with the perspective of defending UDRP actions (an omission that 
occured in part because, as found by the Ombudsman, the BC failed to provide 
its members with timely notice of the opportunity to apply for IRT membership), 
as someone who made
 detailed and thoughtful critiques of the IRT process and Report generally 
without ever pounding on the table, and as a representative of a group that is 
genuinely opposed to trademark infringement and would like the opportunity to 
contribute to a constructive
 and balanced approach that can be made applicable to all gTLDs, new and 
incumbent, I take exception to the statement -- and I haven't even mentioned 
the many overwrought statements that have been made by representatives of TM 
interests.
 
But let's put all that aside and try to move forward constructively.
 The staff assimilation of the URS seems to be a proposal that has little 
support from either side of the issue. I spoke with Zahid earlier today and 
indicated my belief that there is still a possibility for a balanced and 
constructive proposal to be
 put on the table as an alternative. He welcomed that message and advised me to 
stay engaged. The BC has a number of domain investors as members, and on their 
behalf I would hope that at least one of the four CSG slots for the STI-DT 
could reflect that perspective
 and that we will not again be shut out of any official status as we were for 
the IRT.
 
 


Philip S. Corwin 

Partner 

Butera & Andrews 

1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875 (office) 
202-347-6876 (fax)
202-255-6172 (cell)
"Luck is the residue of design." --
 Branch Rickey




From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn 
Cade [marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:56 AM

To: Liz Williams; Zahid Jamil

Cc: bc - GNSO list

Subject: RE: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: 
[Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant 
Guidebook Version 3





Zahid, your analysis is extremely helpful.



I have a few thoughts. One is about how disturbing this is as a 'precedent', as 
well as the specifics of what has actually taken place in terms of the 
outcome/content; e.g. what the present proposals are/and the work before the 
Council on the Board letter. 



I had understood that this letter would be part of your Council/Board dinner. 
If that is the case, it would be helpful to keep that in mind and plan to have 
a discussion with the BC membership again on Monday, BEFORE the Tuesday a.m. 
breakfast. 



When we discuss this at the ad hoc huddle  tonight, can we also get a debrief 
from you not only on this, but also on how the discussions go today with the 
GAC. 



You are making a point that I have a concern about as well. It appears that due 
to somewhat overwrought pounding on the table by a small extremely vocal set of 
players! /people, significant changes have been made.



The way that the IRT was set up was driven by a Board resolution. The initial 
approach to the participants was in fact broadened from the 7-8 IP attorneys 
chosen by the IPC into a broadened approach that was not totally open, but was 
composed of 'experts'.
 The work product was then put out for consultation and comments taken. 



I am thinking that what we are seeing is that the staff then made major 
changes, having taken comments 'selectively' into account. 



I think we have to ask ourselves the following: IRT recommendations, and 
following on comments.  On balance, based on the predominance of comments, do 
we think that the staff recommendations /proposals reflect the comments fairly 
and on balance? 



I ask that question because I am thinking about 'recourse' if we believe that 
our interests are harmed by this acti! on/failure of action. 



Will be very good to talk about this tonight. 










On 25 Oct 2009, at 02:10, Zahid Jamil wrote:





This document was prepared for a meeting held yesterday between the IRT and 
Staff (Kurt, Dan) and a Board Member (Bruce).
 

Here are some points that may interest members:

 

The outcome from Staff in the DAG3 (http://www.icann.org/en/topic!
 s/new-gtlds/dag-en.htm) and those mentioned on

for Rights Protection Mechanism 
(http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#prpm-new-gtlds -difficult
 to find on the website and not connected to the DAG3’s website) DO NOT REFLCT 
the IRT Recommendations.

 

It seems that the Staff has completely reengineered the solutions.   To a large 
extent even though the title of the solution may be the same but the contents 
are effectively not what the IRT recommended.

 

So to give members a feel of the process and what Staff acknowledged in 
yesterday’s meeting:

 

Focusing on 5 Solutions:

1.       Reserved
 List (GPML)

2.       Central IP Database (IP Clearinghouse)

3.       Rapid
 Suspension (URSS)
4.       Rights holders right to take a
 Registry through a Dispute Resolution after the gTLD is launched (Post 
Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure PDDRP)

5.       Thick Whois

 

Eg. 1 - So for instance,
 in regards PDDRP:

 

There were no comments from the community

The Board agreed at the higher level to a PDDRP

 

In my view this would have mean that Staff would go ahead and incorporate the 
IRT solution (maybe just maybe filling in some holes) into DAG3 or the Rights 
Protection Mechanism.  This wasn’t the
 case.

 

Instead the staff completely changed the PDDRP (see Jeff Neuman’s article 
http://www.circleid.com/members/2921/ )

 

So as I put in the meeting yesterday Staff swapped the cards on the IRT, the 
community, and the Board!

 
(But since this was too tricky they didn’t let this go to the GNSO)

 

In short the IRT had recommended that:

 





Standard for Asserting a Claim ?C 3

types:
(a) The Registry Operator’s manner

of operation or use of a TLD is

inconsistent with the

representations made in the TLD

application as approved by

ICANN and incorporated into the

applicable Registry Agreement

and such operation or use of the

TLD is likely to cause confusion
with the complainant’s mark; or


(b) The Registry Operator is in

breach of the specific rights

protection mechanisms
enumerated in such Registry

Operator’s Agreement and such

breach is likely to cause

confusion with complainant’s
mark; or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

(c) The Registry Operator manner of operation or use of the TLD exhibits a bad 
faith intent to profit from the systemic registration of domain name 
registrations therein, which are identical
 or confusingly si! milar to the complainant’s mark, meeting any of the 
following conditi ons: (i) taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character 
or the reputation of

the complainant’s mark, or (ii) unjustifiably impairing the distinctive 
character or the

reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (iii) creating an impermissible 
likelihood of

confusion with Complainant’s mark.

 

 



For a Registry Operator to ! be liable for toplevel

infringement, a complainant must assert

and prove by clear and convincing evidence

that the Registry Operator’s affirmative

conduct in its operation or use of its gTLD,
 that is identical or confusingly similar to the

complainant’s mark, causes or materially

contributes to the gTLD: (a) taking unfair
advantage of the distinctive character or the

reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (b)

unjustifiably impairing the distinctive character

or the reputation of the complainant’s mark, or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(c) creating an impermissible likelihood of

confusion with the complainant’s mark.
For a Registry Operator to be liable for the

conduct at the second level, the complainant

must assert and prove by clear and convincing

evidence:

 

(a) that there is substantial ongoing

pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent

by the registry operator to profit from the sale

of trademark infringing domain names; and
 

 

 

(b) of the registry operator’s bad faith intent to profit from the systematic 
registration of

domain names within the gTLD, that are

identical or confusingly similar to the

complainant’s mark, which: (i) takes unfair

advantage of the distinctive character or the

reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (ii)

unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the 
complainant’s mark, or (iii) creates an impermissible likelihood of

confusion with the complainant’s mark. In this

regard, it would not be nearly enough to show
that the registry operator was on notice of

possible of trademark infringement through

registrations in the gTLD.





 
So basically if a Rights holder or a community that doesn’t object at the 
application stage since the representations in the Application and the Registry 
Agreement
 seem fine has no recourse subsequently to assert and challenge in case there 
is a breach of the Registry Agreement or those representations in the 
application.

 

ICANN staff’s response was:&nb! sp; we will independently deal with enforcement 
brought to our notice.  Basically
 trust us to enforce Registry contracts.

 

 

Eg. 2 - In regards the URSS:

ICANN staff has changed the Rapid Suspension from MANDATORY to BEST PRACTICE

 

Also delinked URSS from the GPML and Clearing House “The Guidebook proposal 
does not mention a pre?\registration
 process utilizing the Clearinghouse”

 

And since the Board was advised that this seems more like Policy the Board has 
sent a letter to the GNSO to either:

 

a) approve the staff model (details of which can be found here 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new?\gtlds/gnso?\consultations?\reports?\en.htm),
 which is an as similation of the IRT work and Board concerns), or

b) propose an alternative that is equivalent or more effective and 
implementable.

 

A six weeks window has been allowed.

&nbs! p;

This basically means that if GNSO cannot reach consensus then Staff Model is 
likely to go through

 

 

The IRT proposals thus have been side tracked and swapped.!


 

 

Example 3 ?C Reserved List (GPML)

It’s just gone ?C Staff had said that they would complete their research (about 
strongest global brands- get data about global brands and see how many 
countries these brands are registered
 in) and then come b! ack ?C but the GPML was just removed ?C no explanation 
and without completing this study.

SO NO RESERVED LIST ?C AND NO SOLUTION TO DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS!

 

 

Generally! :
 

In response to protestations Kurt said in regards some aspects ‘you’re 
preaching to the converted’  and generally said ‘go ahead
 and scream about it’ ?C basically do what the Non commercials are doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Similarly

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 


 

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 
communicat! ed only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
reci
 pient 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: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
 [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh

Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7: 19 AM

To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between 
IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3



 

Further fyi, re STI (“Specified TM Issues”).

 


Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

( 415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com




From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
 Behalf Of Margie Milam

Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 6:01 PM

To: Council GNSO; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and 
Applicant Guidebook Version 3


 

Dear All,

 

As we discussed yesterday,  attached is  a document that summarizes the key 
differences between the IRT and the Applicant Guidebook Version 3.   This 
matrix seeks to succinctly present areas of contrast and briefly explain the 
rationale for
 the differences.    Please review this draft  and let me know  whether there 
is any other information that should be included to facilitate the GNSO’s work 
on the Board request.
 

Best regards,

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN










!