RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael--You chose to leave the room yesterday when these discussions were 
taking place.

ICA (and I believe other domain investor members of the BC) cannot support 
simple reversion to the IRT recommendations, and believe that doing so will 
result in continued gridlock and Board adoption of a staff "assimilation" that 
all sides appear unhappy with.

Repsectfully,
Philip



Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. 
Palage [michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:21 PM
To: 'Zahid Jamil'; 'BC gnso'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements

Zahid,

Is it really constructive to advocate positions that go above and beyond the 
initial recommendations contained in the IRT?

Best regards,

Michael

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Zahid Jamil
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:13 PM
To: 'BC gnso'
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements

Dear All,

Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI.  Here’s something 
helpful Mike R put together.



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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM
To: 'Zahid Jamil'
Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'
Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements

TM Clearinghouse:


1.       Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory.

2.       TM notices (misnamed “IP claims”) must be mandatory:

a.       All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked 
against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or 
thereafter

b.      If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed 
in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff 
recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified

c.       TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that 
applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by 
typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool.  For example, 
yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option.

d.      Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on 
screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses 
for every domain name.  TM owner must get notice of every registration that 
occurs.

URS:

1.       Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries

a.       Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS

2.       Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or 
cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision.

a.       Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended 
until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged

b.      Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to 
register such name(s) again, they would get a notice.

3.       Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name 
Hijacking under UDRP.

4.       Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on 
that yet, so we cannot comment.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 
738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>


From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM
To: 'Zahid Jamil'
Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'
Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements

BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement:

Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it).

TMC --  sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch 
– unanimous except Palage --  scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague 
as to ‘yahoo’, or ‘yahoomail’ or ‘yaho0’ or ‘yahhoo’??  We require notice if TM 
string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except 
Palage).  TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to 
exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos.  Domain 
applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email.  
TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs.


URS – mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks 
in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP 
must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary 
threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined 
same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process 
required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment.  
Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no 
appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision.  Some members also would 
support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone 
seeks to register again, they would get a notice.

GPML – VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, 
but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table.

PDDM


Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 
738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>