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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nope -- I don't think you misunderstood at all :-).  

If you think that it would be helpful to make the same arguments on the same 
issues that you have raised before, which were rejected by the rest of the 
community, including the other CSG constituencies, by all means you should do 
so.  I just don't think that would bear as much fruit as targeting the changes 
that staff made to the provisions that the community agreed to through the STI 
process.

Thanks.

Jon

On Jun 22, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Zahid Jamil wrote:

> Maybe I misunderstood but did you mean the BC focusing on the difference 
> between the BC minority view and the staff? Ie the gap between our interests 
> and what staff has put out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:46:07 -0400
> To: <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Phil Corwin<pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> 'Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'<Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sarah B 
> Deutsch<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> 'owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; BC 
> Secretariat<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
> 
> Zahid:
> 
> With that said, I would suggest focusing on any changes between what the 
> community recommended in STI and what the staff added to DAG4.  Those changes 
> would be the ones that have the best chance of being reversed.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 3:33 AM, Zahid Jamil wrote:
> 
>> 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> 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
>>> 
>>> 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>
>>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:00:08 -0400
>>> To: Phil Corwin<pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <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'
>>> 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 <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
>>> To: bc - GNSO list <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.   
>>>  
>>> Sarah
>