ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V3 for your review

  • To: "Jeff Eckhaus" <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx, "'Margie Milam'" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO STI'" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V3 for your review
  • From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:54:05 +0000


Appreciate your thoughts.

But absence of minority reports can be reason to wait for their inclusion but 
not a reason for their exclusion from relevant areas.

Delays by others in providing minority reports cannot be reason not to include 
them.  It can mean that the report is not complete and can be a reason to wait 
until we have them for inclusion (something I've seen done in other WGs).  I'd 
rather wait for them then put out a report that may give an impression that the 
clearinghouse is viewed as a useful RPM by TM Holders - when TM Holders don't 
view it as such.

Also where on balance your concern exists that including minority points 
'clouds the report' the converse is also true by not including them:  their 
absence gives the impression that the proposal is more or less acceptable for 
TM protection.

I hear everyone tell the BC how useful clearinghouse is for them as an RPM- we 
don't see it as an RPM (maximum as a sunrise tool).  At the end of the day the 
usefulness and appropriateness of something is dependent on whether the user 
thinks its so. If Trade Mark Holders don't think its useful as an RPM that goes 
to the core of why we are discussing it.

The entire purpose of the clearinghouse is that its supposed to address TM 
Holders concerns and be a TM RPM.  But if TM holders remain unconvinced of its 
value as an RPM, that's relevant enough to be pasted in yellow highlights to 
ensure that is clear to the reader rather than the risk of being left with a 
contrary impression or unsure of its usefulness to TM Holders when reading 
simply 'rough consensus' in the far right column. 

In my view that will leave the reader with an impression that this is a more or 
less useful TM RPM for TM Holders -  when that's not how TM Holders view it.

Simply put: a proposed solution for TM Holders that relegates and makes TM 
Holders opposition to it opaque, isn't a transparent outcome - there is a risk 
that it may be seen as misleading.


Zahid Jamil
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:21:16 
To: 'Margie Milam'<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>; 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V3 for your review


Thanks for the quick turnaround on this and my comments are directed towards 
the overall structure of the document, not whether we should use the word 
shall, may or some other variant of the word in a certain section so do not 
worry about the edits in sections.

There is a great deal of prominence given in the intro to the Trademark 
Clearinghouse Proposal and throughout the TC area on the BC Minority Statement. 
Since they were the first ones to voice their Minority Statement maybe it has 
been given more prominence but I think this structure cannot hold once all 
Minority Statements are submitted.  I think you had it right when you wrote the 
following statement "Those minority opinions that were know at the time this 
Report was written are included. Others may be appended by Stakeholder Groups 
prior to the vote of the GNSO Council" I think that should be the end of the 
reporting and discussions on Minority positions and leave them for the 
Appendix.  By including every minority position in the summary and every point 
it clouds the report and will just be a list of Minority positions.

Just to be clear this is not intended to quiet the BC position but looking 
forward when everyone has their minority position submitted and all want to be 
heard in the same way.

Would like to hear some feedback on these thoughts, which are meant to be 
constructive and not towards stifling anyone's position and of course I will 
not be on the call tomorrow to be yelled at for this so feel free to do it over 
email. I guess this falls under my role as Margie wrote "plus a few non-lawyers 
who worked hard to keep the work focused and clear."


From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:38 PM
Subject: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report - V3 for your review
Importance: High

Dear All,

Attached for your review is the third draft of the STI Report, which attempts 
to pick up everyone's comments and suggested revisions.   Where there were 
disagreements,  I attempted to include each of the alternative proposals in 

My hope is that we will be able to get through the entire document on 
tomorrow's call.

Best Regards,



Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy