This is a good (and our only I guess) plan I¹ve tried to get answers to our questions by various trademark people but this is more difficult than actually finding answers to the Loch Ness monster mystery. I am very happy to work with Mary on this after they have published something and provide the NCUC response. Best Konstantinos On 13/03/2009 20:17, "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 <http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/06/06/farley-legal-briefing/> and Jaqui > Lipton <http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/06/06/lipton-legal-briefing/> . > > 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 dea >>>>> dlines 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] > > > > > -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: [log in to unmask]