Re: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
Without invalidating the comments I previously submitted on behalf of ALAC, I support the changes submitted by Kathy with the following exceptions:
Intro to TC: Adding "verified" here seems at odds with the statement in 4.1 to accept marks from "all jurisdictions".
TC 9.1: In 2.2, we use the term "validation" to describe what the TC will do before accepting a mark into the database. "Review" is the term we are using for what SOME national TM authorities do. So "validation" seems correct in 9.1
URS 4.2 The original text reads "Filing an answer after a Default decision should cause the domain name to resolve immediately to original website." Ignoring the issues regarding a domain name resolving to IP address(es) and not just websites, the term "Default decision" is not sufficiently clear. Nothing happens to the DNS entry on default. On a Decision against the claimant (whether after a default or not) does not change the DNS. A decision FOR the claimant, (whether following a default or not) suspends the domain name. An late answer received after a decision for the claimant will reactivate the domain name.
I thought I covered that clearly in what I suggested should be section 5.x (section 5 discusses Answers).
Alan At 07/12/2009 06:03 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
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