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

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

My apologies for responding to the wrong message on the wrong list.
Please ignore.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Gomes, Chuck 
        Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:44 PM
        To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO STI'
        Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Updated Strawman Proposal for
Trademark Clearinghouse
        
        
        Mike,
         
        Let me use our own plans for IDN versions of .com and .net as an
example.  Our current plans that we have communicated to our customers
and others is as follows:

        *       
                Second level registrants for any .com or .net domain
names will have the right to activate their second-level name for any
IDN versions of the corresponding .com or .net name and no one else will
be allowed to do that.
        *       
                All second level registrations for IDN versions of .com
or .net will be associated with their corresponding ASCII .com or .net
as applicable.
        *       
                In essence, the result will be that all active second
level domain names for .com or .net (ASCII or IDN) will have the same
registrant.  For any that are not activated, they will be unavailable to
others.

        I don't think there should be any user confusion in the DNS in
this approach.  Do you?
         
        Chuck 


________________________________

                From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
                Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:18 PM
                To: 'GNSO STI'
                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

                ____________