ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II

  • To: <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II
  • From: <McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:54:09 -0600

This is unexpected and disappointing. We spent many hours on calls with members 
of the NCSG working constructively through its concerns related to the URS all 
so that we could reach full consensus on the URS, which consensus Kathy 
provided - with some much appreciated dramatic affect - on our final call. To 
have NCSG attempt to back pedal like this at this late hour is truly troubling. 

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 
Assistant: Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 Facsimile 
griersonl@xxxxxxxxx 


-------------------------- 
This email was sent from my BlackBerry device. Please forgive any typos. 



________________________________

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Mon Dec 07 15:42:40 2009
Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II 


NCSG will be sending its detailed comments on this draft to this list shortly 
from Kathy.

I wanted to make a general comment in the meantime about the use "unanimous 
consensus" to describe support the URS and "rough consensus" to describe 
support for the Trademark Clearinghouse in the Report.   >From NCSG's 
perspective, the URS should be more accurately characterized as "rough 
consensus" since NCSG's first preference was not to create one at all, but we 
agreed to this as a compromise to induce the roll-out of new gtlds.  Our 
support for the URS is contingent upon that understanding, so I'd suggest 
re-wording the first paragraph of the URS section as follows (changes in blue):

There is a rough consensus among the members of STI that creation of a Uniform 
Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure would be a beneficial rights protection 
mechanism for inclusion in the New GTLD program.  The STI recognizes that the 
URS could provide trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited process in 
instances of clear cut instances of trademark abuse, provided that the 
procedure includes appropriate safeguards to protect registrants who may engage 
in legitimate uses of domain names.  Despite the expedited nature of the URS, 
staff shall recommend a uniform procedure for and URS Service providers shall 
provide procedures consistent with fair notice, justice, and due process.

Thanks,
Robin


On Dec 5, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Margie Milam wrote:


        Dear All,
         
        Attached for your review is the second draft of the STI Report, that 
includes the Trademark Clearinghouse and URS recommendations.   
         
        Although I have received a number of comments already to the first 
draft,  this version does not address any of them except to change the 
references of “broad consensus” to “rough consensus.”    I thought it would be 
more appropriate to wait for additional comments before circulating the next 
draft.   
         
         
        Best Regards,
         
        Margie
         
        _____________
         
        Margie Milam
        Senior Policy Counselor
        ICANN
        _____________
         
        <STI-WT - Draft Recommendations - v-2.doc>





IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

http://www.gtlaw.com/


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>