ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


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

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

  • To: <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II
  • From: <McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:59:21 -0600

Thanks Robin. 

Respectfully, your comments don't clarify. I think Kathy's statement on our 
last URS was quite clear and this 11th hour retreat is not reflective of all 
the hard work all of the stake holder groups put in to address NCSG concerns 
and the consensus that was reached in the process. We think the report should 
reflect the consensus that was, in fact, reached and to the extent NCSG has any 
clarifying statement it wishes to make along the lines below, you put those in 
a statement to the GNSO Council or make them through your Counselors rather 
than having a report that does not reflect what actually happened. 



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: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: McGrady, Paul D. (Shld-Chi-IP/Tech) 
Cc: gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Mon Dec 07 16:39:30 2009
Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II 


Dear Paul,

I apologize if I came across as back-peddling, which we are not.    We do agree 
with the consensus on most of these points, we just think the wording in the 
draft to describe the support for the URS is too strong of an endorsement for 
the need for the URS in the first place.  Yes, we are agreeing to go along with 
it because we want to see new gtlds introduced, and given the alternatives, we 
think it is the best compromise that could be reached.  So I don't mean to 
imply to we do not support the consensus, we just don't want the board to get a 
report that says all the GNSO is unanimous that a URS must be created before 
new gtlds can be introduced as the current wording seems to imply.  I hope that 
clears up my intention with the suggested edits.

Thanks,
Robin


On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:54 PM, <McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


        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.
        
        


        
________________________________

        
             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 postmaster@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxx> .

          

________________________________


         

        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





        


________________________________















        <http://www.gtlaw.com/> 





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





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