RE: [bc-gnso] Edits to Update on STI

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Zahid,

 

Can you shed any light on the insistence that the validation of data occur
at the regional level between multiple providers?  If a uniquely qualified
organization such as WIPO decided to step forward, why should they be
prohibited from serving as a sole source provider of this validation?

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Zahid Jamil
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:25 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Edits to Update on STI

 

Dear All,

 

Had been holding out for comments or approvals to be received from many who
wished time to add their support or comments.  Here is the final draft.
Please let me know if I have left out any important inclusion that may have
reached consensus.  I plan to post this by midday EST.

 

Here are a few highlights of the Special Trademark Issues working group set
up by the GNSO to respond to the Board's letter:

 

Registrar and Registry are vehemently against:

 

 

Post Launch IP Claims:

(Registrar and Registry are vehemently against, IPC probably don't want to
rock the boat with Ry/Rr, NCSG want to ensure that doesn't lead to 'chilling
effect' for individual registrants) - looking tough!

 

 

Domain Name Transfer in case of successful URS by complainant:

Ry/Rr dislike Domain Name Suspension/Block especially without fee in case of
a successful URS complaint.  They would rather just agree to a simple
transfer since it doesn't 'mess' with their protocols.

NCSG against Transfer - they want a mechanism where even though a name is
subject to a URS, a registrant who can demonstrate legitimate interest
should be able to get that domain name. 

IPC agree to transfer but willing to agree to suspension subject to fee
based renewal by Complainant (TM holder)

 

URS-Mandatory?:

NCSG the only ones against making it mandatory but seem to be open to it if
the URS process incorporates more due process protections.

 

 

 

 

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: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:23 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: Final BC Position on RPMs & Update on STI

 

Dear All,

 

Had been holding out for comments or approvals to be received from many who
wished time to add their support or comments.  Here is the final draft.
Please let me know if I have left any important inclusion that may have
reached consensus out.  I plan to post this by midday EST.

 

Here are a few highlights of the Special Trademark Issues working group set
up by the GNSO to respond to the Board's letter:

 

Registrar and Registry are vehemently against:

 

 

Post Launch IP Claims:

(Registrar and Registry are vehemently against, IPC probably don't want to
rock the boat with Ry/Rr, NCSG want to ensure that doesn't lead to 'chilling
effect' for individual registrants) - looking tough!

 

 

Domain Name Transfer in case of successful URS by complainant:

Ry/Rr dislike Domain Name Suspension/Block especially without fee in case of
a successful URS complaint.  They would rather just agree to a simple
transfer since it doesn't 'mess' with their protocols.

NCSG against Transfer - they want a mechanism where even though a name is
subject to a URS, a registrant who can demonstrate legitimate interest
should be able to get that domain name. 

IPC agree to transfer but willing to agree to suspension subject to fee
based renewal by Complainant (TM holder)

 

URS-Mandatory?:

NCSG the only ones against making it mandatory but seem to be open to it if
the URS process incorporates more due process protections.

 

 

 

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.