RE: [gnso-sti]

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is not new advocacy.  Zahid and I have been clear throughout this
process as to the BC's position, which was almost unanimously agreed amongst
our members in Seoul.  A clearinghouse for sunrise registrations is a gift
to registries and registrars, much more than to anyone else.  A fundamental
premise of this 'overarching issue' is that businesses generally do not want
more sunrise registrations (and, many of them want no new TLDs, at all).  So
providing them an easier way to get sunrise registrations is certainly not a
gift, and arguably is a bigger curse as the onus may be upon them to
defensively register even more, if the process is so easy.  Of course, that
would further benefit contracting parties too.

 

More fundamentally, the goal of this group was to find a compromise that
would effectively deter cybersquatting.  We have done nothing in that
regard.  The TM Claims service is entirely useless if limited to the first
30 days of a registry launch.  (Indeed, the .biz process was worthless too.)
The URS is unlikely to be utilized much at all, if there is no transfer
option.  There is minimal justification for creating such a new process, if
it is unlikely to be utilized and will not do anything to solve the problem
it is designed to address.  At minimum, there ought to be a feasibility
study about this, before the Council or Board put it to a vote.

 

We have been clear and repetitive on these points throughout the STI's work.
There has been almost no movement towards our positions on these fundamental
issues, although we have compromised on virtually every other point, and we
understand ALAC, IPC and ISPs at least are sympathetic to much of what we
are saying.  In any event, the BC will not support a so-called 'consensus
report' without our strong misgivings clearly outlined at all points in the
report where consensus is stated as fact, but in fact does not exist.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:40 AM
To: Zahid Jamil; GNSO STI
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] 

 

It sounds like we should take this new advocacy out of the report.  I agree
with Jeff that it isn't appropriate in a group report.  The BC probably
should append a minority statement on the TM Clearinghouse and be done with
it.  This is how we handled the GNSO reform report.  Thanks.  Jon  

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:19 AM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] 

 

Dear Jon,

 

I would not see it appropriate to belittle any one's views.  My
understanding was that these are final positions - I had expressed these on
the last call and on several calls but with little or no engagement - these
positions are not new.

 

The BC members do not see the Clearinghouse as beneficial - this has been
expressed by my members so I would not venture to explain to them how the
view they hold is 'inaccurate'.  Happy to invite anyone interested to speak
to my members if they so wish.  Until then I am afraid the view is held by
the BC.

 

 

In any case:

 

If the BC is inaccurate about the benefits to its members then what of the
benefit/cost reductions to Registries?

 

Also we are far far away from the IRT - the tapestry has been shredded -
thus, there is no comparison to the recommendations of the IRT and what we
have today.  In any case the STI is not subject to the IRT - nor are any of
the SGs/Constituencies bound by it. 

 

 

With regard to circumvention - If the Clearinghouse is supposed to be an RPM
or remedy to defensive registrations then it fails since registrants would
just wait until launch.  A prospective TM Holder would not see any benefit
in that especially since the IP Claims notice is nothing more than a notice
-which is available from current watch notices- what protection does it
provide?

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:02 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Zahid Jamil; GNSO STI; Margie Milam
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] 

 

I agree with Jeff.  Many of these edits belong only in a minority report . .
.. if anywhere.  

 

It would be great if the BC would highlight the differences between this STI
consensus TM Clearinghouse proposal and the IRT IP Clearinghouse consensus
proposal that has caused it to garner such ire and derision?  

 

I also agree with Jeff that the BC cannot be accurate in its claim that a
centralized sunrise database doesn't benefit BC members at all and that it
benefits registries over its BC members.  

 

This addition is particularly inaccurate, especially in the context of a
sunrise process.  

 

"The possibility to circumvent the whole Clearinghouse system due to its
inapplicability to Post launch thereby allowing gaming and making it
irrelevant in the first 30 seconds of lunch."

 

How would the Clearinghouse be circumvented, gamed, or irrelevant in a
Sunrise process?  Also, Jeff, is it fair to assume that the IP Claims
process wasn't gamed and rendered irrelevant during the .biz roll-out?  What
is the difference now?

 

Finally, what's the relevance of when lunch is served anyway J?

 

JN

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:42 AM
To: Zahid Jamil; GNSO STI; Margie Milam
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] 

 

I have to say I am disappointed in the BC comments and believe that we
should have a call to discuss this. I do not believe the BC minority
position should be sprinkled throughout each and every recommendation.  A
note should indicate there is a minority position and state that at the end.
In addition, the BC should not use this report as an advocacy piece, but
rather stick to the facts.  Lets discuss on our call, but the Registries are
not very happy with how this has come out either, but we are willing to live
with compromise.  The BC statement talking about the Clearinghouse
benefitting only the Registries is not only incorrect, but is a complete
distortion of reality.   The BC can make their arguments to the GNSO and to
the Board, but there is no place for that kind of statement in this report.

 

Best regards,

 

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 Zahid Jamil
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:26 AM
To: 'GNSO STI'; 'Margie Milam'
Subject: [gnso-sti] 

 

Dear All,

 

Here are the BC edits.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.