Bill,
I agree with you and Milton on this.
Equal participation on a fair and balanced team is not an option
since the trademark industry is itself in charge of the process and
running the "team". It is not realistic to obtain competent
participation from high level trademark experts without confirmed
dates and other basic information about the commitment they are being
asked to make to an ICANN process. Especially on such short notice.
We should direct the "team" towards the papers NCUC submitted just a
year ago on this very issue from neutral trademark law professors
Christine Haight Farley and Jaqui Lipton.
And perhaps Konstantinos and Mary can work on a response to the
proposal put forward by the "team". No doubt the proposal will be
identical to what the trademark industry has been calling for in the
various public comments, so we know what to expect.
The question will be how much weight will the "team's" proposal be
given by the Board.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 13, 2009, at 4:55 AM, William Drake wrote:
> I have come to agree with Milton that we should not participate in
> this and should have a coordinated response to its outputs.
>
> BD
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Another aspect of this "team" that I find astonishing is how ICANN
>> is opening its wallet to fly the IPC and its friends around the
>> world to put on their "sky is falling show", but sends ALAC
>> members home from ICANN meetings a day early to save on travel
>> expenses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Bill,
>>>
>>> It seems clear that IPC isn't really looking for a balanced team
>>> and is just looking for a team of itself to vocalize its own
>>> complaints.
>>>
>>> It is not possible to ask someone to participate in a realistic
>>> way before tomorrow.
>>>
>>> There is no information about what we would be asking people to
>>> do. All we know is that a team member must be willing to give
>>> up 2 "mystery weekends" between now and April (or is it mid-week?).
>>>
>>> We don't know where. We don't know when. We don't know for
>>> how long. We don't have an agenda or anything that would make
>>> this meeting seem like a sincere effort to include others not in
>>> the IPC.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine asking a reputable law professor to participate
>>> in this circus at this point.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 7:00 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, this is interesting, in several respects...
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Rosette, Kristina <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible
>>>> given the deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and
>>>> the work that needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of
>>>> people from almost every constituency and some of the ACs had
>>>> already contacted IPC members about participating and had been
>>>> provided similar information to that set forth below. I posted
>>>> the message below in an effort to provide the information for
>>>> dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC
>>>> members. As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of
>>>> the resolution speaks for itself.
>>>>
>>>> Kristina
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: William Drake [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM
>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina
>>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kristina,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC.
>>>> However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to
>>>> Monday or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th
>>>> noon deadline is a very unworkable turnaround time if we are
>>>> serious about getting strong applicants and engagement from all
>>>> constituencies, as the board intends. Some people might not be
>>>> reading mail today or be able to determine so quickly whether
>>>> the workload fits with their schedule etc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations
>>>>> for IRT participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide
>>>>> the information below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve
>>>>> Metalitz (IPC President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email
>>>>> address is not on the Council page or the IPC home page so
>>>>> please contact me off-list if you would like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The nominations must include:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee
>>>>> (including the name of her/his employer and title);
>>>>> 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a
>>>>> citizen and is a resident;
>>>>> 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and
>>>>> expertise in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or
>>>>> competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain
>>>>> name system;
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior
>>>>> management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries,
>>>>> registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or
>>>>> interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has
>>>>> a transaction, contract, or other arrangement;
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party
>>>>> or person through her/his IRT participation and, if so,
>>>>> identify that party or person; and
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first
>>>>> draft of the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the
>>>>> trademark issues and, if so, attach a copy of those comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13
>>>>> March, at noon EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the
>>>>> Board in the resolution, it will be exceedingly difficult to
>>>>> consider any nominations submitted after that point. Also,
>>>>> based on very preliminary time lines, IRT participants should
>>>>> expect to spend at least 15 full business days (excluding
>>>>> travel time) in the next two months on the team's work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kristina
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
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]
|
