Fwd: Intersponsive's URS Advisory Board

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi David and Everyone,
I think this position may involve some work, but I would like to 
volunteer to undertake it.  While the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) was 
a process introduced to us by the Intellectual Property Constituency and 
Business Constituency in the in IRT report, we managed to negotiate 
safeguards, limits and due process in the STI Team.

I spent many hundreds of hours working on the URS as part of the STI 
team, and feel strongly about seeing the implementation take place 
according to the rules we have drawn up. In particular, we want to 
ensure that "defaults," or the failure of a individual, organization or 
company to respond in the very short time allowed under the URS are 
fully evaluated by attorneys with trademark law experience and 
expertise.  A number of potential URS Service Providers (WIPO in 
particular) have tried to cut back on this guarantee and commitment 
(which is a very clear commitment that we, NCUC/NCSG, ensured was in the 
Guidebook).

Intersponsive has already made the commitment to keep the URS rules as 
drafted.  They did  so openly and publicly at the URS Session in Toronto 
-- when NAF and WIPO said they could not. So already, Intersponsive has 
a "good check" by its name. It's a new service provider, and one clearly 
open to input and advice, otherwise we would not have been invited on 
their advisory board.

We also wrote into the URS additional fairness issues missing from the 
UDRP, including rotation of panelists -- so that same one person cannot 
be appointed again and again to give one (pro-IP) decision -- as has 
happened so many times at WIPO. I want to see all of these commitments, 
and more, come to fruition.

As you know, I am Internet Counsel for Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, and a 
co-founder of the NCUC (with so many wonderful people). If you would 
like, I would be happy to serve in this new capacity.

Best,
Kathy

--------------------------
David Cake wrote:
:
> Interesponsive Corporation intends to respond to ICANNs URS RFI, and 
> is seeking input from the community. I know NCUC has several members 
> with a strong interest in the URS, would any be interested in taking 
> up their offer?
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> From Paul D. McGrady Jr.
>> As many of you know from the URS session in Toronto, we represent 
>> Intersponsive Corporation.  Intersponsive intends to file a response 
>> to ICANN’s recent RFI related to the URS. As mentioned in our 
>> presentation, Intersponsive believes that the URS is implementable at 
>> the community requested price point without substantive changes at 
>> this late stage.
>> In order to ensure that Intersponsive takes a balanced approach 
>> during this initial phase and (should ICANN select it as a URS 
>> provider) after launch, Responsive is requesting that each 
>> constituency consider appointing a constituency member who is willing 
>> to serve on Intersponsive’s URS Advisory Board.  Intersponsive 
>> welcomes the dialogue and clarity created by having  every voice at 
>> the table.  If there are new voices or new subgroups (e.g. NTAG, 
>> etc.) resulting from the new gTLD rollout, Intersponsive wishes to 
>> include them as well.  Intersponsive understands that the new gTLD 
>> rollout has created nuances of opinions and interests and 
>> Intersponsive welcomes those voices.
>


-- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121119/22f88a89/attachment-0001.html>