RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

Can you please do a compare of the language in 5.1 to the language proposed in 
the Final IRT Report?  I am assuming that is where you got the language 
originally which I was fine with, but review would be a lot easier with that 
comparison.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy



________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:40 AM
To: Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report

 

Margie,

 

Attached is a comparison version showing the IPC's comments to the draft 
report.  We believe these comments are clarifying in nature and do not expect 
that they would be controversial.  I will be in transit most of today, so if 
you have any specific questions, please reach out to Mark.  Thanks!  

 

Regards,

Paul

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 

Links: www.paulmcgrady.com <http://www.paulmcgrady.com/>  and 
www.mcgradyondomainnames.com <http://www.mcgradyondomainnames.com/> 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

     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 [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:33 PM
To: Margie Milam; GNSO STI
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report

Some other comments.  Thanks again Margie!

Section 3.2:  I believe “equal access requirements for all persons and entities 
required to access the TC” should be added as another element of the Agreement 
between ICANN and the TC.

Section 4.1 I would like a statement included (even if a Minority Statement 
from the Registries) that says: “Inclusion of a trademark in the Trademark 
Clearinghouse from a country where there is not substantive review, does not 
necessarily mean that a new gTLD Registry must include those trademarks in a 
Sunrise or IP Claims Process.”

Section 4.2 – I am not sure this is worded the way we discussed.  I would 
change from this: No common law rights should be included in the TC Database, 
except for court validated common law marks.   The TC Service Provider could 
charge higher fees to reflect the additional costs associated with verifying 
these common law rights” to “The TC Database shall not be required to include 
common law rights, except for court validated common law marks; provided that a 
new gTLD Registry may elect to have the TC Service Provider collect and verify 
common law right provided that it conforms to Recommendation 2.3.  The TC 
Service Provider could charge higher fees to reflect the additional costs 
associated with verifying these common law rights.”

Section 5.2 – See last e-mail from Alan (which I agreed with his comments).

Section 10.1 – IN the minority view, I would change: “RySG Minority Position 
that Registries should not bear any of the costs of the TC” to “RySG Minority 
Position that Registries should not bear any of the costs of the TC and that if 
Registries are required to provide funding for the TC, nothing shall prohibit 
Registries from passing those costs through to participants of RPMs”.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Margie Milam
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:46 PM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report
Importance: High

 

Dear All,

 

Attached for your review is the first draft of the STI Report, that includes 
only the Trademark Clearinghouse recommendations.   I will send the remainder 
of the document with the URS descriptions this weekend.

 

Best Regards,

 

Margie

 

_____________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

_____________

 

________________________________