Re: [council] FW: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement
Thanks for doing so. Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2009 à 16:34, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > 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 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|