ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


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

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

  • To: <McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx>, <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II
  • From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:23:54 -0500

Paul:

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I am hopeful that you might be reading into this
proposed change too much.  I don't see it as a retreat.  The suggestion
is to make comparable the level of consensus specified in the URS
section and the TC section.  The current draft states that there is
unanimous consensus for the URS and rough consensus for the
Clearinghouse.

 

My suggestion in these summary sections is to just use the word
"consensus" and leave the sub-designations for the specific principles
enumerated in the chart.

 

In the spirit of compromise, could folks live with just saying that
there is "consensus" for the URS and a Trademark Clearinghouse without
specifying rough or unanimous?

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 5:59 PM
To: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II

 

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 >>>