RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark Clearinghouse

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

The document is an attempt to capture consensus points and unresolved issues as 
best as possible during the call,  and it is easy to miss all of the nuances 
that take place.    To the degree something is in fact mischaracterized from 
the call, please let me know and I  will be happy to update the document.   
However,  I don't recall that you participated on yesterday's call-  and my 
notes reflect the understanding at the close of the call.      It sounds like 
you disagree with the substance of the proposal, rather than the 
characterization of the call.   If you disagree with the substance, you need to 
participate and voice your concerns, which would be appreciated, since we are  
trying to finalize the  Strawman Proposal this week.

The only way we have to assess consensus in this expedited process is to hear 
from the representatives on each of the calls, and silence unfortunately can 
have the effect of indicating an apparent consensus.     The point of the 
Strawman Proposal is that it is a compromise position, with no one constituency 
100% pleased with the outcome.   The question for each of the representatives 
this week is whether the Strawman Proposal is better than the alternative- 
which is  having no  recommendation to send to the Board from the GNSO.   
Please remember that you still have the option of submitting a  minority 
position for those issues that are troubling for any constituency/stakeholder 
group.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________



From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:43 PM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark 
Clearinghouse

Thanks Margie.

I think there is not consensus on deleting this language from Sec. 6:  Delete: 
[Voluntary use by registries of database to support common law rights, 
including "marks contained," for pre-launch protections. ]  Same with the 
deletes from Sec. 4 re voluntary uses of the TMC, and the addition of language 
to this effect in Sec. 2:  "TC Service Provider is  required to maintain a 
separate TC database and cannot use the TC database to provide ancillary 
services."

There certainly cannot be consensus that the TMC cannot be used in these ways, 
even if a registry operator wishes.  What reason could exist for denying 
additional protections or services in this regard, if a registry wants to 
provide them?   The TMC, at minimum, must be designed to support them.

Seems we still have a ways to go on Sec. 7 too.

The burden on everyone in this group is enormous, absence/silence cannot be 
construed as agreement with any apparent consensus reached during any 
particular call.

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-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:41 AM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark Clearinghouse

Dear All,

Attached for your review is the updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark 
Clearinghouse that takes into account our discussions on yesterday's call.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
____________