Re: [gnso-sti]

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jon, thanks. These are helpful thoughts and appreciated. Will consider.


                                       
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
www.jamilandjamil.com


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:24:42 
To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO STI<gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] 

Mike: Here are a couple of examples of the kinds of changes that I am
suggesting in the chart.  Obviously, the BC should feel free to add
whatever reasoning it wishes in its minority statement.  Thanks.  Jon

 

 

Go from 

 

5.1 BC Minority position: Due to the watered down nature of IP Claims,
identical match and no Post Launch, these should not be referred to as
Rights Protection Mechanisms.  A true RPM would not exclude the latter
and would attempt to address defensive registration.  Remedies could
include a true IP Clearinghouse in conjunction a GPML or a Victim's List


 

to

 

5.1. BC Minority position: Due to the lack of identical match and no
Post Launch, these should not be referred to as Rights Protection
Mechanisms.  

 

and

 

go from

 

9.1  BC minority position:  since registration in the Database provides
little or no TM protection, failure to file may be perceived to be lack
of vigilance by TM holders,

 

to         

 

9.1. BC minority position:  Failure to file in Clearinghouse should not
be perceived to be lack of vigilance by TM holders,

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:00 AM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] 

 

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

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

www.jamilandjamil.com <http://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 :-)?

 

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

www.jamilandjamil.com <http://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.