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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is unfair to characterize consensus solely on the basis of calls, which
group members may not be able to attend.  Consensus (or majority/minority
calls) should only be taken after a chance for everyone to comment on the
list.  The list has been active.  We are all volunteers, who are deeply
overburdened by the artifically tight timeframe imposed on this work.  Our
views cannot be discounted simply because we cannot participate in many
hours of calls each week.

 

>From my perspective at moment, I would rather the GNSO make no proposal,
than one that will be ineffective and pointless (assuming these watered down
concepts could even be implemented via any sort of sustainable business
model).

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 1:21 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO STI'
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark
Clearinghouse

 

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)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

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

____________