<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Update on the GNSO/STI - rights protection mechanisms</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> Dear all,<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
I am attaching the latest version of the working ‘strawman’ for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TC) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) regarding the new gTLDs. Here is where we are now:<BR>
<BR>
In June 2009, the IRT submitted its final report on rights protection mechanisms, amongst which they suggested the creation of a Clearinghouse to assist trademark owners in protecting their rights at the pre-launch registration phase and a Uniform Rapid Suspension system for those egregious cybersquatting instances. The report can be found at: </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><U><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#irt-report">http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#irt-report</a></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>.<BR>
<BR>
After the period of public comments and the rejection of the IRT by the wider community, the ICANN staff proceeded to a re-drafting of some of the IRT recommendations – the Clearinghouse and the URS. Both documents can be found at: <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><U><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-tm-clearinghouse-04oct09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-tm-clearinghouse-04oct09-en.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FE"> </FONT></U>and<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><U><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct09-en.pdf</a></U></FONT>.<BR>
<BR>
Following initial reactions on the staff recommendations, the ICANN staff requested the GNSO to review the Staff proposal and ideally reach a consensus on whether to: a) accept these as suggested by staff or b) recommend new ones. One key issue: should consensus fail, the ICANN staff have the discretion to decide on how to proceed – taking into consideration the non-consesus recommendations of the GNSO-constructed team. The letter requesting the GNSO to deliberate on these issues can be found at: <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><U><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf</a></U></FONT>.<BR>
<BR>
The GNSO was given a tight deadline, until December 14, 2009. During the ICANN Seoul meeting, the GNSO authorized the creation of the STI – a Special Trademark Interest team consisting of representatives of the GNSO constituencies. The NCUC/NCSG is represented by: Kathy Kleiman, Wendy Selzer, Robin Gross and Konstantinos Komaitis.<BR>
<BR>
Today the STI has met 9 times, once in Seoul and twice each week since then via telephone conferences. As of today we have consensus on most of the issues, but there are still major issues that we are debating on. We are working based on two ‘strawman’ positions, one for the Clearinghouse and one for the URS; each point is (or has been) discussed extensively and we continue to refine the ‘strawmans’ until we have reached consensus – or some middle ground. <BR>
<BR>
Generally, there has been a lot of progress. The proposals are more balanced and there is more safeguards for due process. We all have taken all of our discussions on board (both in Seoul and in the mailing list) to address the concerns of individual registrants, NGOs and entrepreneurs. We have sought to learn from the mistakes of the UDRP and create a process with more checks and balances. <BR>
<BR>
The STI is asked to deliver to the GNSO its final report on December 7, 2009 – although it looks like this might be postponed for a couple of days with the agreement of the GNSO. There is a general agreement that if by that time the STI has not managed to reach consensus, but it can, provided there is more time, the report will be submitted but the STI might meet for a face-to-face meeting to finalize it (some time early January).<BR>
<BR>
We are really working on a tight deadline, so I think that during the work of the STI you have the opportunity to review the points of consensus.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thank you.<BR>
<BR>
Konstantinos<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> PS: some points might be difficult to decipher (following the ICANN-abbreviated world) but the links provided might help.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>-- <BR>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR>
Lecturer in Law,<BR>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<BR>
University of Strathclyde,<BR>
The Lord Hope Building,<BR>
141 St. James Road,<BR>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<BR>
UK<BR>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR>
email: <a href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>