<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
- To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:42:06 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Importance: high
- In-reply-to: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4B0BD6@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4B0BD6@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac5WOFCqeiAcsYiTR7yrDn/KlyPkSQAwKdtg
- Thread-topic: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be
discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of
the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a
topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC
to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a
subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the
invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT
adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50
VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE
CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED
WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE
IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED
TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside
legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be
written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder
model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their
proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways
that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration
Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not
only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an
accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not
step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next
Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial
Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from
the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in
Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|