RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report
Margie, Attached is a comparison version showing the IPC's comments to the draft report. We believe these comments are clarifying in nature and do not expect that they would be controversial. I will be in transit most of today, so if you have any specific questions, please reach out to Mark. Thanks! Regards, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 312 456 8426 tel 312 899 0407 fax mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx> Assistant: Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 Facsimile griersonl@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:griersonl@xxxxxxxxx> Links: www.paulmcgrady.com <http://www.paulmcgrady.com/> and www.mcgradyondomainnames.com <http://www.mcgradyondomainnames.com/> ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:33 PM To: Margie Milam; GNSO STI Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report Some other comments. Thanks again Margie! Section 3.2: I believe "equal access requirements for all persons and entities required to access the TC" should be added as another element of the Agreement between ICANN and the TC. Section 4.1 I would like a statement included (even if a Minority Statement from the Registries) that says: "Inclusion of a trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse from a country where there is not substantive review, does not necessarily mean that a new gTLD Registry must include those trademarks in a Sunrise or IP Claims Process." Section 4.2 - I am not sure this is worded the way we discussed. I would change from this: No common law rights should be included in the TC Database, except for court validated common law marks. The TC Service Provider could charge higher fees to reflect the additional costs associated with verifying these common law rights" to "The TC Database shall not be required to include common law rights, except for court validated common law marks; provided that a new gTLD Registry may elect to have the TC Service Provider collect and verify common law right provided that it conforms to Recommendation 2.3. The TC Service Provider could charge higher fees to reflect the additional costs associated with verifying these common law rights." Section 5.2 - See last e-mail from Alan (which I agreed with his comments). Section 10.1 - IN the minority view, I would change: "RySG Minority Position that Registries should not bear any of the costs of the TC" to "RySG Minority Position that Registries should not bear any of the costs of the TC and that if Registries are required to provide funding for the TC, nothing shall prohibit Registries from passing those costs through to participants of RPMs". 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 _____________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxx. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment:
DVComparison_#58934673v1_CHI_ - STI-WT - Draft Recommendations - v-2 (2).doc-#58934673v3_CHI_ - STI-WT - Draft Recommendations - v-2 (2).doc.pdf
|