Re: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
Hi All,Attached is the NCSG's requests for changes to the text of the excellent STI Report which Margie has drafted. I hope you will find our edits consistent with the positions we have taken all along. We offer them to further clarify and explain these positions. Our edits fall into two broad categories:1. changing "should" to "shall." Especially where there are issues involving notice and due process, we feel strongly that the word "shall" should be used as these are protections for the registrant we negotiated together. 2. adding in specific language regarding the notice and due process requirements as we understand the discussion and agreement. All changes in the attached document are shown via "Track Changes." These include brief changes to the Background, opening paragraphs of each section and Annexes. One further change that we support, and have incorporated, is the change of IP Claims to TM Claims. I think this was Alan's edit and we agree -- and note that the STI has been using the term TM Claims in our discussion for some time. We hope these edits, and all our edits, advance us to the end game. Best, Kathy 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 _____________ Attachment:
STI-WT - Draft Recommendations - v-2 (NCSG edits).doc
|