Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II
Yes, thank you, Jon, for the better explanation and for the good suggestion of a compromise that addresses the concern about the differing levels of support between the URS and TC. I am happy to just call both "consensus" in those summary sections.
Thanks, Robin On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
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. JonFrom: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of McGradyP@xxxxxxxxxSent: 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@xxxxxxxxxAssistant: 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@xxxxxxxxxAssistant: 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.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 IINCSG 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 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
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