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

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone

IF these elements are where there is consensus THEN I suggest we move  
rapidly to supporting a statement that says now these issues are  
resolved (which are all post implementation commitments for potential  
applicants and NOT barrier issues to the application process), the new  
TLD application process can proceed.  Note that the effect of these  
supposedly mandatory requirements will not take effect for at least  
another 12 months, presupposing that an application process opens in  
Q1 2010.
Arguing to put in place any other impediments in the new TLD  
application process unfairly and unreasonably enables a group to hold  
a process hostage, at the expense of other legitimate stakeholders.
Note that these so called mandatory requirements have not been  
accurately costed, do not apply to existing legacy registries and, as  
such, will attach burdens to new applicants which are not clearly  
articulated.  I doubt that anyone who supports the opening of the new  
TLD application process will ask for this detail to be provided in  
full in advance of the application process.  That would only cause  
further unnecessary delays.
Liz
On 28 Oct 2009, at 02:21, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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
>
> 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://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://rodenbaugh.com