ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


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

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

  • To: "gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report- Part II
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:18:36 -0500

I think that the distinction raised by Robin is reasonable. The lead sentence of each section says how beneficial we all think the TC or the URS will be. If I remember correctly, in each case, we were not asked whether we think it is a good idea, we were asked HOW to implement it assuming it will be implemented with or without our help.

I can certainly live with Jon's suggestion, and note that for the URS, we do have unanimous consensus that it should be mandatory - which was the point that Kathy was highlighting in her closing remarks.

Alan

At 07/12/2009 08:32 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
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.



Jon



----------
From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [<mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of <mailto:McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx>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
<mailto:mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx>mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx
Assistant: Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 Facsimile <mailto:griersonl@xxxxxxxxx>griersonl@xxxxxxxxx


--------------------------
This email was sent from my BlackBerry device. Please forgive any typos.

----------
From: Robin Gross <<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: McGrady, Paul D. (Shld-Chi-IP/Tech)
Cc: <mailto:gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx <<mailto: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, <<mailto:McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx>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
<mailto:mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx>mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx
Assistant: Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 Facsimile <mailto:griersonl@xxxxxxxxx>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 <mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxx>postmaster@xxxxxxxxx.



----------




From: <mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx <<mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
To: GNSO STI <<mailto:gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>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>http://www.ipjustice.org e: <mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>http://www.ipjustice.org e: <mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>http://www.ipjustice.org e: <mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx




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