ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-sti] Special Trademark Issues Work Team Report to the GNSO Council

  • To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Special Trademark Issues Work Team Report to the GNSO Council
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:25:13 -0800

Thanks Margie and everyone else in the STI group, it was a monstrous effort
in a ludicrously short timeframe.  The BC Minority Statement is attached.
Zahid and I believe it reflects the consensus of our membership, after
active consultation with them throughout the STI process.  However the
document is out for comment within our Constituency, so may be modified and
may not be a final version for up to three weeks, per the terms of our


We do not object to nearly as many things as are reflected in the .pdf
charts from Margie this morning, so hopefully they will be updated online at
least.  On those charts, our Minority Statement is relevant to sections 3,
4, 6.1, 7 and 10.1 re the Clearinghouse, and section 7.1 re the URS.


We object to only two aspects of the Clearinghouse as it is devised within
the STI Initial Report:  1) the breadth of data allowed into the
Clearinghouse,  and 2) required use of information within the Clearinghouse,
beyond Sunrise Periods, to serve notices to registrants or would-be
registrants that there is a potential trademark conflict related to their
registration.   We believe that businesses ought to get more benefit from
the Clearinghouse, than merely the right to buy domain names during sunrise
periods - which most do not want to do.  We believe businesses should get
more protection than the right to buy exact matches only of registered
trademarks.  If they wish to purchase other trademark names during sunrise,
because they believe squatters otherwise will, then they should be allowed
to do so (as in .asia, .tel and .eu launches, at least).  Further, we
believe that broadening the use of the Clearinghouse in these ways would be
beneficial to everyone in the community insofar as pertinent information
would be available, which could be used to notify registrants of potential
domain name disputes at the point of sale, thereby avoiding a substantial
percentage of those domain disputes.  The ICANN community ought to
demonstrate this commitment to avoiding these costly and frequent disputes.


We object to only one failing of the URS as stated in the STI report -- that
it would not provide successful complainants the option to have the clearly
infringing domain name registration(s) transferred.  We believe that, after
all appeal timeframes have lapsed, the successful complainant will have
demonstrated a clear and convincing burden of proof, and so should be
allowed to put the formerly infringing domain names to beneficial use.  We
believe the absence of this remedy will result in underutilization of this
process, and thus continued overutilization of the more expensive UDRP, in
many more obvious cases of cybersquatting.  At minimum, we believe some sort
of feasibility study should be conducted before a decision is made to
include it, or not, as an available remedy.


We hope, at least, that these potential future modifications would be
possible within a flexible design of these new systems, so they are not
costly to add if the community later sees any wisdom in doing so.



Mike Rodenbaugh

GNSO Councilor, Business Constituency



Mike Rodenbaugh


548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087

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



From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Margie Milam
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:20 AM
To: GNSO Council
Cc: gnso sti
Subject: [gnso-sti] Special Trademark Issues Work Team Report to the GNSO
Importance: High


Dear All,


On behalf of  David Maher, the Chair of the STI Work Team,  I am pleased to
forward the Report from the Special Trademark Issues Work Team describing
recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 17
December 2009.


Please note that there are several minority reports that are currently under
development, as referenced in Annex 4, that will be sent separately to the
GNSO Council as they are completed.


Best Regards,


Margie Milam




Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor






Attachment: BC Minority Report (Final Draft).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy