Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

True - but the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the STI recommendations.
Just as I often find myself in a minority position within the BC and accept 
that, there comes a point where the BC should accept the majority position of 
the GNSO.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
2026635347/Office
2022556172/Cell

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

________________________________
From: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Phil Corwin; 'Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' 
<Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sarah B Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 'owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx' 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; BC Secretariat <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Jun 22 03:33:26 2010
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

Just a point of clarification that may help. BC did not unanimously support the 
STI outcome. The BC had in fact a minority statement in the report that 
differed substantively from the views of others.



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

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.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

________________________________
From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:33:04 +0000
To: 'Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'<Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'zahid@xxxxxxxxx'<zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx'<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

I believe that the BC risks its credibility by proposing to reopen STI 
positions that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council and subsequently by 
the ICANN Board and that are now included in DAGv4. Do we really want to revive 
and revisit the divisive debates of 2009?
Having said that, the ultimate relief for rights owners across all gTLDs can 
come from the balanced UDRP PDP that Sarah opposes. That process, started now, 
could result in reforms being put in place coincident with the addition of new 
gTLDs at the end of 2011/early 2012.
Finally, there must be some mechanism to assure uniform application by all UDRP 
arbitration providers as in its absence there will be increasing divergence and 
resultant forum shopping.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
2026635347/Office
2022556172/Cell

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

________________________________
From: Frederick Felman <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sarah B Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; Phil Corwin; BC Secretariat <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Jun 22 02:41:03 2010
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

We stand with Zahid and Sarah in support of the WIPO remarks and agree with 
Zahid's comments below.

Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733

(please excuse any content I might blame on the size of the keyboard & screen 
including but not limited to typos)

On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:45 AM, "Zahid Jamil" 
<zahid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I wonder about multi lateral organisations entering into a contract for 
providing service with a not for profit.

In regards the URS, having served on both the IRT and STI, my views are well 
known. The URS is the only REAL Rights Protection Mechanism in the new gTLD 
environment. (TM Clearinghouse not being an RPM). It is only a Post launch RPM. 
Not a preventive RPM leaving the issue of defensive registration unresolved 
(also acknowledged by the Economic Study). The URS does not therefore solve the 
defensive registration problem and makes TM owners pay for URS as opposed to 
incurring the cost of defensive registration. In either case TM Owners 
subsidise new gTLDs for no economic benefit in return.

To top it all the URS is merely a temporary suspension (no transfer being made 
available to a successful Complainant). At the end of a year the domain name 
pops back up (wackamo/revolving door) forcing the TM Owner to possibly paying 
again to suspend the domain.

Also the difference in the Rapidity of the UDRP and URS is .....wait for 
this..... ONE day less!

Not really Rapid!





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<http://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.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

________________________________
From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" 
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:00:08 -0400
To: Phil Corwin<pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

Given the strong levels of concerns raised about the DAG from many parties, I 
don't think we can characterize the current remedies as having consensus, much 
less remarkable consensus.  Re-opening the UDRP is a dangerous exercise that 
could wind up being a double edge sword..  Without a workable UDRP, IP owners 
will by default turn to suing registrars.

In any event, it would be helpful if others from the BC could weigh in on 
whether  the BC   c an support WIPO's comments.

Thanks,

Sarah


Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670


________________________________
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

ICA would object to endorsing that portion of the letter that seeks to reopen 
the URS debate and undo the remarkable consensus achieved by the STI at the 
direction of the GNSO.
Also, while I do not fully understand their last point, WIPO seems to regard 
the UDRP as something they control rather than an ICANN consensus policy they 
facilitate as arbitrator, and has opposed the community reexamining it after 10 
years of experience. The RAPWG, on the other hand, has recommended a balanced 
PDP focused on UDRP reform. ICA believes that placing all UDRP providers under 
standard contract should be a key component of such reform and that doing so 
would enhance uniform implementation that would benefit both complainants and 
registrants.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
2026635347/Office
2022556172/Cell

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

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Mon Jun 21 08:17:30 2010
Subject: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

All,

I'm passing along WIPO's recent excellent and succint comments to ICANN on 
continuing problems in the DAG v. 4.  I would propose that the BC support these 
comments as they directly affect the availability of effective remedies for 
businesses to protect their brands and consumers from confusion after the 
rollout of new gTLDs.

See:  <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann160610.pdf> 
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann160610.pdf.

Sarah