RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Margie,


Recommendations 2.3 and 6.1 are very much related.  I believe the
following changes should be made in conjunction with our discussions.

2.3  should be changed from "The TC Service Provider should be required
to maintain a separate TC database, and may not use the TC database to
provide ancillary services." To "The TC Service Provider should be
required to maintain a separate TC database, and may not store any data
in the TC database related to its provision of ancillary services, if
any."

      

6.1 should be changed from: "There should be no bar on the TC Service
Provider or other third party service providers providing ancillary
services on a non-exclusive basis.  Such services could include, without
limitation, a "marks contained" service, or a TM watch service.   In
order not to have a competitive advantage over competitors, the TC
database should be licensed to competitors interested in providing
ancillary services on reasonable terms.  The implementation details
should be left to Staff to address possible monopoly and competition
concerns.   If the TC Service Provider provides such ancillary services,
any information should be stored in a separate database." to:

"There should be no bar on the TC Service Provider or other third party
service providers providing ancillary services on a non-exclusive basis.
Such services could include, without limitation, a "marks contained"
service, or a TM watch service.   In order not to have a competitive
advantage over competitors, the TC database should be licensed to
competitors interested in providing ancillary services on an equal basis
on commercially reasonable terms; provided that the TC Service Provider
is not materially advantaged in the provision of such ancillary services
by virtue of it being the TC Service Provider.  The specific
implementation details should be left to Staff to address possible
monopoly and competition concerns, and all terms and conditions related
to the provision of such services shall be included in the TC Service
Provider's agreement with ICANN and subject to ICANN review.   As stated
in 2.3, if the TC Service Provider provides such ancillary services, any
information should be stored in a separate database.

Thanks again Margie.  I will review the other provisions when I get a
few more minutes.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy



________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:46 PM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report
Importance: High

 

Dear All,

 

Attached for your review is the first draft of the STI Report, that
includes only the Trademark Clearinghouse recommendations.   I will send
the remainder of the document with the URS descriptions this weekend.

 

Best Regards,

 

Margie

 

_____________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

_____________

 "