Re: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on Thursday Evening

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would certainly hope so, given that there is an open e-mail list and the 
concerns over the IRT's lack of transparency.
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-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@xxxxxxxx>; Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>; Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>; 
Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Oct 28 02:31:19 2009
Subject: RE: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on 
Thursday Evening

On a somewhat different note, can we confirm that the Thursday meeting will be 
open also to interested members of each SG who may not themselves be members of 
the STI?

As I recall, the initial volunteers for the STI review team agreed over the 
weekend that a leaner review team would be more effective, but that the team 
would be expected to consult with and solicit input from their SG. Since there 
were overall more volunteers than capacity allowed, I think it'd be useful to 
take advantage of their presence here in Seoul.

Thanks,
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/28/2009 1:13 AM >>>
That would be fine Andrei.  It is up to you, Olga and Terry to decide.

Chuck

________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:39 AM
To: 'Margie Milam'; 'Council GNSO'; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on 
Thursday Evening

Should I propose myself as a NomCom rep into STI team? I missed this one at the 
gNSO meeting today.

--andrei

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Council GNSO; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on Thursday Evening
Importance: High

Dear All,

We have reserved the Astor Room on the 36th Floor for a face to face meeting of 
the STI Review Team on Thursday, October 29th from 5-6:30 pm.     As a 
reminder, each of the Stakeholder Groups should identify their representatives 
to the Review Team in accordance with the proposed motion that will be voted 
upon at the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday.   For your information, the 
proposed motion is below.

Best regards,

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate certain ICANN 
staff implementation proposals for the protection of trademarks in new gTLDs 
based in part on the recommendations from the IRT, public comments, and 
additional analysis undertaken by ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 
12 October 2009 <<Letter from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO 
Council<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf>>>.

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO’s view by December 14, 2009 
on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second level strings 
recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are consistent with the GNSO’s 
proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and 
effective options for achieving the GNSO’s stated principles and objectives;

WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to approve 
the procedures for conducting such evaluation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following process to 
conduct the evaluation requested by the Board:

1.               A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of representatives 
designated as follows:  the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups with two 
(2) representatives each,  the Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the 
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups with four (4) representatives each, and 
At-Large with two (2) representatives and one representative from the 
Nominating Committee Appointees(1);

2.               Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit from their members 
their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised by the 
ICANN Board letter and the ICANN Staff proposed models for the implementation 
of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will 
deliver their initial position statements on November 4, and with final 
position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009;

3.               Such position statements will be summarized by ICANN Staff and 
distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate whether a consensus can be 
reached on the ICANN Staff implementation models or other proposals for the 
protection of trademarks in the New gTLD Program; and

The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas where 
consensus has already been reached, an seek to develop consensus on those 
issues for which consensus could not be determined. The GNSO Review Team will 
provide a final report to the GNSO on or before the GNSO council’s meeting in 
late November, 2009.