There is another way to look at it, Alain and All,

Fadi and ICANN needed to finalize the contracts re: creation of the 
Trademark Clearinghouse and related services. In particular, ICANN 
decided that IBM would offer the Registry/Registrar "query services" for 
the "Trademark Claims" process -- that's basically the query of whether 
a certain string of letters is registered as a trademark in the 
Trademark Clearinghouse (commonly now called "the TMCH") and then 
receive the information that will be passed onto registrants -- namely 
the Trademark, Trademark Holder, Country of Registration, Class of 
Registration, Description of Goods and Services.

It was decided that Deloitte will be the first company to handle the 
"validation process" of the TMCH. That's the whole intake process on 
whether a trademark is valid, whether it is property certified, and in 
certain cases, whether there is proof of use (for those countries which 
don't require use before registration). Other companies may also 
contract with ICANN to offer these services in the future - Deloitte is 
the test or pilot of the system. It, in turn, provides and receives data 
from IBM and the TMCH system.

Fadi was very smart: he negotiated these contracts so that the ICANN 
owns the data, not the service providers, and so that ICANN can audit 
and review closely.

So in this important time, as the specifications were being finalized, 
the Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies brought some 
additional requests.  Rather than just dealing with them behind closed 
doors (which is what the IPC/BC wanted), Fadi quickly put together a 
diverse group.  Completely balanced, no, but he was listening very, very 
carefully to all sides (particularly ours).

Fadi let the IPC/BC present, and we responded. What emerged was an 
expansion, to some extent, of existing Rights Protection Mechanisms, but 
not the dramatic new RPMs the IPC/BC wanted (and have always wanted). We 
blocked the call for blocking one more time (as we have done since it 
was first introduced in 2008).

If you and others can see it clear to giving some time in this busy 
period to write comments, it would be a good idea to oppose the TM+50, 
the idea of going past "exact matches" to 50 variations of a Trademark, 
that would be a good idea. The IRT and STI, as Mary has pointed out, 
wanted exact matches. 50+ variations can go way beyond existing 
trademarks into entirely new words. that's far beyond trademark 
protection, and invades other's legitimate uses.

But All, the vast majority of the meeting was about implementation -- 
and getting to final specs and a final contract with IBM and Deloitte.
Please read the Strawman and respond. But there's nothing evil here. 
Constituencies advocate for their interests -- we do and they do.
If you have questions, please let me know.
I lived on the phone for these meetings 3 of the 4 days.
Best,
Kathy



> Hi Alain,
>
> They tried that route, but the consensus did not go their way.  Instead of getting required RPMs they got the recommendation that every new gTLD should use a RPM and they produced a nice volume of possible RPMs that the applications could, and should, use voluntarily.  This was the first compromise they agreed to when they voted in favor of the new gTLD program.
>
> Little did we know at the time that compromise was just a stepping stone to future victory.
>
> So ever since they have been trying and trying and trying: IRT, STI, Fadi's strawman
>
> And each time they try, they get  a little close to what they want.
>
> Ignoring the multistakeholder process and using each compromise as a booster for the next assault is a tried & true IPC/BC method that has worked well at ICANN.  And thus they have no reason to stop using that technique.  Fadi is just the latest attack vector.
>
> We keep going this way, and IPC/BC will own our first born children, or at least the names we give them.
>
> avri
>
> On 2 Dec 2012, at 20:14, Alain Berranger wrote:
>
>> Thanks Robin. Dear all,
>>
>> Is it not the essence of a strawman solution to be imperfect and to be subjected to further testing, consultations and brain-storming?
>>
>> Can we ask IPC/BC and/or ICANN staff why a strawman solution is chosen as opposed to a Working Group or a PDP or whatever else ICANN uses to establish policies? Maybe I should know the answer but I don't. I may only speculate that time is of the essence for commercial interests and  that the proposed strawman solution suits their purposes.
>>
>> Can any insights be shared from the IP lawyers in NCSG or anyone else in the know?
>>
>> Thanks, Alain
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear All:
>>
>> ICANN has released its proposed strawman solution to give further concessions to the IPC-BC.
>>    http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm
>>
>> ICANN presents this "solution" like it is the output of a community process and consensus, but it is really just a bunch of executive decisions based one-sided discussions, over the objections of many in the community.
>>
>> Really disappointing how staff is undermining ICANN's bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy process at exactly the time it should be strengthening it.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>
>>
>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
>> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>>


--