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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed Marilyn.  You are right.  The members at the meeting agreed but the
draft position will be posted to the list for input allowing members that
were not in the meeting to also have the opportunity to comment.
 
 
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: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Zahid Jamil; michael@xxxxxxxxxx; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
 

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@xxxxxxxxx
To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
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
 <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@xxxxxxxxxx] 
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@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
 <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@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)
<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@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)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>