[PC-NCSG] draft of statement on additional RPM's for new tlds

[Maria Farrell]

Hi Robin,

This is great, thanks.

Couple of points:

1      "Furthermore, just because there has been one instance of abuse with
a trademark, does
not mean that all subsequent uses of a trademarked word are abusive or
prohibited by
law. But that is the policy that IPC-BC proposes ICANN adopt."

This point may be better made in a separate para just below and not as part
of the bulleted list on p.2 of ways the measures go beyond copyright law.

2      "The IPC-BC proposal would create a
chilling effect by giving trademark holders the right to intimidate
registrants in perpetuity despite
the community consensus that the TMCH pertain to a limited time period."

This point could use a little elaboration to remind people what it's about,
something like:

*"By changing a finite period for action into an indefinite one,*" the
IPC-BC proposal would create a
chilling effect by giving trademark holders the right to intimidate
registrants in perpetuity despite
the community consensus that the TMCH pertain to a limited time period.

Or something like that, that makes sense in lawyerly terms.


3      To sweeten the pill a little, I suggest adding *"While we greatly
appreciate the efforts of the CEO to reach out to us and accommodate NCSG
participation,* we remind ICANN that the IPC-BC?s November 4-5 meeting with
staff in Brussels is an
inappropriate forum.."

4      Change unbalance (verb) in following sentence to imbalance (noun).
In same sentence, make 'effected stakeholder' plural - stakeholders.

5      "NCSG welcomes the opportunity to meet with ICANN?s CEO and senior
staff". Suggest addition of "NCSG welcomes the *invitation* and opportunity
to meet with ICANN?s CEO and senior staff".

6      Finally, how about a bulleted list at the very beginning of the doc
that summarises our key points?

Executive Summary

   - NCSG is concerned by the convening of a last-minute, exclusive and
   unbalanced meeting with ICANN senior staff by two GNSO constituencies to
   discuss a new Rights Protection Mechanisms proposal that circumvents the
   multi-stakeholder policy development process.


   - This meeting is billed as a session on technical implementation, but
   deals with substantive policy issues and a new and one-sided proposal
   regarding issues that have already been addressed by the community process.
   - The proposal under discussion does not reflect the hard-won balance or
   limitations found in the current consensus
   policy, or in trademark law.
   - The proposal removes matters from the negotiated RAA and registry
   agreements into a vague 'backdoor process', and binds ICANN to unlimited
   compliance obligations. It would drive up end-user costs and stifle market
   innovation.
   - Both the substance of discussion and the manner of convening this
   meeting undermine our shared desires to create a truly multi-equal
   stakeholder process that honours ICANN's commitment to transparency and
   accountability.

Or something...

Thanks a million, Robin, for doing all the drafting.

All the best, Maria


On 30 October 2012 11:48, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 29 Oct 2012, at 21:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> > <NCSG-Response-10-29-v1.doc>
>
>
> Good letter.
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121030/8d69a236/attachment.html>