RE: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report/a typo noted and a suggestion for more clarity on a point or two
- To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report/a typo noted and a suggestion for more clarity on a point or two
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:40:00 -0500
While I generally support the Minority Report, I want to raise one item just
for awareness and consideration.
Re the suggestion on page one that the "costs of developing and operating the
TMC must be borne by ICANN and its registries and registrars": I think that
in the past that business has understood that there would also need to be a
cost based fee that would be paid by trademark holders who decide to use the
service. I think that we need to be pragmatic and realistic about recognizing
that there will be a fee for trademark holders, and focus on making it 'cost
I agree that the TMC will also benefit registries, of course. The last
sentence under Who Pays? does indicate that the costs would be shared.
I think that we need to be very pragmatic about recognizing that costs have to
be shared, but that the trademark fees must be "cost based" fees.
I especially appreciate that the minority report makes it clear that defensive
registrations remain a serious problem with the present lack of safeguards.
typo: Under What does a Match mean? Second sentence, : However, the STI....
II. The URS
I wonder if we might change the use of the term 'mean spirited'. Perhaps as
business people, we might just say that the BC supports the ALAC
representative's comments that object to 'forcing successful URS
I like the proposal for a feasibility study. We might want to make it clear
that we consider this a 'fast track' feasibility study, so that it is not
rejected out of hand as an effort to delay any progression on new gTLDs.
Thanks for the hard work of the BC team.
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:14:09 -0800
I support the BC Minority
Position as attached with only one small edit.
Page 2, What does a Match Mean?
However, he STI
recommends ß should it be “the STI recommends”?
Berry A. Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 07:14
Cc: 'Margie Milam'
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Minority Position re STI Initial Report
Attached please find the Minority Statement that Zahid and I
have drafted, based upon the earlier consensus document agreed by the BC,
further comments from Members during this STI process, and our own negotiation
and participation efforts within the STI team.
I also include Zahid’s version 1.0, which I have edited
drastically due to focus, length and repetition. He has not had a chance
to review my version 2.0 yet, either, as he is hopefully asleep right now.
Margie, this is tentative, subject to modification upon
formal review of our membership, but Zahid and I believe it represents
consensus of the BC. We ask you to please hold it, and do not submit the
Initial Report to the Council, until at least 3pm PST today, to allow our
members the chance to offer comments to me and Zahid, for possible further
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104