RE: [council] FW: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

It's my understanding that there is a decent chance.   
 
I raised it for information purposes.  I don't have any idea as to when we'll 
get the report and when we'll be expected to vote. Accordingly, I wanted to 
highlight the issue as one that merits consideration if it is in the final 
report.
 
 


________________________________

        From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:30 AM
        To: Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [council] FW: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement
        
        
        Thanks for the heads-up Kristina. 

        At this stage, do we know if the STI is actually planning to propose 
the limitations mentioned in its final report? I'm only asking because I don't 
really see what action can be taken around any of the STI stuff until we see 
their final report...

        Thanks,

        Stéphane
        
        
        Le 3 déc. 2009 à 16:01, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :


                
                All,
                 
                With apologies for duplication to those who are subscribe to or 
read the STI list, I am forwarding a message posted on behalf of IPC leadership 
and the IPC STI representatives.
                 
                Given the importance of this issue and the potential 
ramifications, I wanted to make certain you are all aware of it.
                 
                K

________________________________

                From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
                Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:57 AM
                To: 'GNSO STI'
                Subject: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement
                
                

                Dear All,

                Please find the attached statement from the IPC.

                

                Best Regards,

                Margie

                

                From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:48 AM
                To: Margie Milam
                Cc: mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: Fwd: Re: Clearinghouse statement

                

                Margie,
                
                I'm not sure if this went to entire STI list.  Would you please 
see that it does.  Thanks.
                
                Mark
                
<ATT00001.bmp>

Mark V.B. Partridge
Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive - Suite 5000 - Chicago, IL  60606
T (312) 554-8000 Direct (312) 554-7922 F (312) 554-8015
mpartridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mpartridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>     
www.pattishall.com <http://www.pattishall.com/> 


                
***************************************************************************
                The preceding message and any attachments may contain 
confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. 
You may not forward this message or any attachments without the permission of 
the sender. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply 
to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. 
Nothing in this email message, including the typed name of the sender and/or 
this signature block, is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless 
a specific statement to the contrary is included in the message.
                
***************************************************************************

                De : "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                
                Date : 3 décembre 2009 04:18:35 HNEC
                
                À : "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, "Margie Milam" 
<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                Objet : Rép : Clearinghouse statement
                


                Dear Members of the STI:
                 
                Your attention is invited to the following statement on behalf 
of the IPC leadership and STI representatives for consideration in connection 
with our telephone conference on the Clearinghouse on December 3, 2009.
                 
                Cordially,
                 
                Mark Partridge
                 
                >>>>>>>>>>
                 
                The STI is currently considering a proposal advocated by the 
NCSG representatives to the STI that would limit the trademark registration 
data included in the Clearinghouse to trademark registrations from countries 
that undertake substantive review.
                 
                This proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the IRT, 
and the IPC is strongly opposed to limiting the Clearinghouse in that manner.  
A large number of developing and developed countries, including most of Europe, 
do not engage in substantive review on relative grounds.  It is a serious 
problem and unwise for ICANN to treat such systems in the Clearinghouse as 
being inferior or to disinfranchise registrants from these countries from 
participation in the Clearinghouse.  This would particularly prejudice small 
businesses and not-for-profits who may only budget for a limited number of 
registrations in their country of origin, rather than a global registration 
program. 
                 
                Instead, the Clearinghouse, at a minimum, should include 
registrations of national or multinational effect, as recommended by the IRT.  
The proper solution for concerns about the scope and validity of registrations 
is to record all registrations of national or multi-national effect, and to 
deal with questions of scope and validity through notice, disclosure, challenge 
procedures and filing deadlines.
                 
                Reliance on the IRT report with respect to the URS standards is 
misplaced, as the URS is part of an overall dispute resolution system that 
accepts all types of trademark rights and merely limits the rights at issue in 
the URS where prior substantive review of registrations facilitates expedited 
proceedings.