RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxx or marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx





From: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

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