[bc-gnso] BC comments and consensus in the STI Report
- To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>, "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] BC comments and consensus in the STI Report
- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:52:00 -0500
Zahid ? Thanks for your ongoing efforts and dedication to serving the BC on
this STI project.
There¹s an expression that goes, ³Don¹t let the perfect be the enemy of the
Good.² To this I would add, ³Especially don¹t push for perfect if that
will help your opponents to kill-off what good there is.²
Let me be more specific. By noting our Clearinghouse concerns as a
³Minority Position², the BC is depriving the STI Report of showing
³Unanimous Consensus² about the threshold question of whether to have any
Clearinghouse mechanism in Sunrise periods.
Here¹s why that¹s bad for the BC: Opponents of IP rights protection (even
those on Staff and Board) will note the lack of consensus in arguing that
the Clearinghouse should not be required for new gTLDs. After all, didn¹t
Staff cite the lack of consensus among the IP community when they rejected
> I think we should enable ³Unanimous Consensus² for at least 3 critical items
> in the Clearinghouse Table of the STI report (1.1, 2.3, and 5.1) For those
> rows, let¹s note our concerns without calling them ³Minority Views². Maybe
> we move those 3 concerns/commetnts to the bottom of the table?
> Apart from those 3 items, I think we can leave our other concerns under
> Minority Views column.
P.S. I heard from one of my member companies about this (AOL-TW), which
prompted me to return to the suggestion I made on 2-Dec:
> We could agree that the Clearinghouse has a very limited benefit ? just a way
> to cut costs for TM owners having to monitor multiple parallel sunrise
> periods. But that¹s ALL it is, so we should neither consider nor accept this
> Clearinghouse mechanism as the required solution for defensive registrations.
Again, thanks for what you¹re doing, Zahid. (and please avoid the street
markets there in Pakistan for awhile)
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
On 12/8/09 10:26 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Members,
> Here are my edits to the STI Recommendations. It seems on the Clearinghouse
> BC finds itself in the minority but have stated positions for the record.
> The IPC is of the view that they should let the Clearinghouse through as it
> stands in the Recommendation. Since BC position is in the minority this seems
> as the likely result.
> ISPC has been absent from the STI proceedings.
> Am currently under heavy fire from Ry/Rr on the list for my edits they want
> to push the edits out to the bottom of the document.
> Zahid Jamil