RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike:

I don't recall taking a position in Seoul in favor of transfer being available 
in the URS. I do recall saying that ICA might be open to making it mandatory 
again if the final package had adequate balance and registrant protections, and 
we now have no objections on that front.

We didn't know in Seoul about the WIPO and CAC expedited UDRP efforts, and 
those developments have crystallized the issue and led to ICA's decision that 
the issue of transfer under an expedited UDRP should await comprehensive UDRP 
reform. Of course, the STI-RT recommendation that the URS be subjected to 
regular review and possible revision gives everyone a chance to see how it 
works in practice, with the possibility of a transfer option being made 
available down the line.

I do appreciate the hard work that you and Zahid put into this. However, the 
IPC representatives on the STI-RT are very vigorous proponents of trademark 
rights and I do not believe that they would agree with your characterization 
that they have caved in.

Regards,
Philip

Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike 
Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:21 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

Hi Phil,

Re the transfer option for the URS, why has ICA’s position changed since the 
BC’s Seoul meeting?

Zahid and I do not know why the IPC and others are caving in to a compromise 
that is likely to do very little to alleviate the problem of cybersquatting in 
new gTLDs, particularly when we (Zahid especially) worked so hard to get 
important concessions from so many parties along the way.  To see them 
discarded at the end for no reason has been a tremendous disappointment for us, 
and we believe should be very disappointing for all members, including the ICA.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 
738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:11 PM
To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

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
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zahid 
Jamil [zahid@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:48 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
FYI.

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.




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


*** 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


Dear All,

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 
Thursday.


Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________