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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keep in mind what was discussed in the 23 Nov Council meeting:  If the
STI group is not able to finish its work by 7 Dec, it would still be
helpful if a report could be submitted showing where there is consensus
and where additional work is needed.  It would also be helpful if you
have some estimates about how much more time may be needed.  That would
at least give the Council what it needs for our meeting on 17 December.
If you are able to finish before shortly before 17 Dec, that would be
good but would not allow enough time for review by the SGs, etc., but we
could then schedule Council action for our 7 Jan meeting.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
        Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:11 PM
        To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for
Trademark Clearinghouse
        
        

        I agree with Mike on his first statement. I have not been able
to attend the calls this week (which marks the first week I have not
been able to make any calls since joining the irt back in April). We are
trying to meet a completely arbitrary deadline set by the board (for
what reasons no one has yet to be able to explain other than "you need
to have a deadline so that work gets done").
        
        That said, if we do not finish this week, so be it. But I am
stating for the record that my silence does not mean support on any
item. The registers have made its positions known and we have
compromised where we could. With more time perhaps other compromises can
be made.
        
        Thanks. 
        Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
        Vice President, Law & Policy 
        NeuStar, Inc. 
        Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 
        
        

        
________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx 
        To: 'GNSO STI' 
        Sent: Tue Dec 01 17:17:55 2009
        Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for
Trademark Clearinghouse 
        

        

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

        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) 738-8087
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&ref
erer=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

        ____________