RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
- To: "zahid@xxxxxxxxx" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
- From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:11:11 -0500
I very much appreciate the fact that the BC designated me in Seoul to serve as
an alternate delegate to the STI-RT, despite the well known ICA differences
with the IRT, and with the BC position on its work methodology and product.
That said, and for the record, the ICA does not agree with the BC position as
regards the work of the STI-RT.
We have no specific disagreement with the BC minority position regarding the
Trademark Clearinghouse. But we would note that the BC has registered 13
separate minority positions in regard to a proposal that the IPC has not
registered a single objection to -- and wonder how it has come about that a
constituency that is supposed to represent the broad interests of businesses
conducted via the Internet has arrived at harder line positions on trademark
issues than those of the constituency devoted to IP interests. (In comparison,
only one other minority position was filed, on a single issue, by the RySG.)
We strongly dissent in regard to the BC position that the URS should provide a
means to transfer a domain. The IRT proposed the URS as a supplement to the
UDRP which, in exchange for a less expensive and expedited process, would lead
to suspension of a domain rather than a transfer. Again, the BC is seeking to
expand upon a proposal that the IPC has accepted. The ICA is not opposed to the
consideration of an expedited, fast track UDRP -- so long as it that occurs
within the context of a comprehensive UDRP reform PDP, rather than through a
perversion of the limited scope of Supplemental Rules as has been proposed by
the CAC and is anticipated from WIPO.
Thank you for consideration of our views.
Philip S. Corwin
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zahid
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Mike and me are drafting a minority report based upon existing BC positions
culminating in the consensus at the Seoul meetings and comments from the list.
Unfortunately it seems we will probably have one day to submit this. We will be
able to post the draft by tomorrow morning and look forward to comments
tomorrow and will at day end submit to the STI.
Comments today so we can use them in our draft would be appreciated and would
help speed matters up.
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:30:23 -0800
To: 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Thank you for a very productive call today. Attached for your review is the
fourth draft of the STI Report, which attempts to pick up our discussions today.
I believe we are very close to a final version of this the report and would
appreciate your comments or revisions by the close of business today, so that I
can prepare the final report tomorrow morning. Also, please send your
minority reports by tomorrow morning to ensure inclusion in the version that
will be circulated to the GNSO Council. As discussed, if you need more time
to draft a minority report, you would need to send to me next week, so that it
can be forwarded to the Board after the GNSO Council vote (if successful) next
Senior Policy Counselor