RE: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Alan...my paraphrasing was incorrect.

I hope that doesn't take away from the real point of my message which is the 
wording of the recommendation by the BGC and the assumptions they have made.  I 
would ask that that be the focus of the discussion going forward.

Let me restate that Neustar has no view one way or another on the substance of 
what is being implemented.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:23 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the 
Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark 
Clearinghouse
Importance: High

Jeff (and others),

I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very 
substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 
March document
(http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution-memo-20mar13-en.pdf)
specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. 
That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 
100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in
the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH for 
a single TM character string could be far larger than 50.

Alan

At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

>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