<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Jeff,
Our next council meeting is looming and I have a draft agenda in my hands.
As below, happy to have this on the agenda but we need to frame the
discussion if possible and invite one or more members of the BGC.
Are you willing / able to draft the invite and include scoping the
discussion?
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 May 2013 17:56
To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Neuman, Jeff'
Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the
Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark
Clearinghouse
In answer to Jeff's question, a couple of points:
1. Yes, happy to have this on the draft agenda for next meeting.
2. If we are to invite the BGC, we need to have a written invite and,
ideally, talk with the Chair.
Are you willing to draft the invite? Key point is to scope and focus the
discussion.
>From what I understand, there is one primary issue i.e.
The rationale / logic (not the outcome) and the perceived implications for
the ICANN multi-stakeholder model.
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 May 2013 18:04
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the
Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark
Clearinghouse
Jeff, I agree 100% with your concerns. This ICANN unilateralism is worrying,
to say the least, and much bigger than the issue of the 50+ records. This
may be the end of the multi-stakeholder model.
Volker
> 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-s
> olution-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
>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it
is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify
the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|