Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper
Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms. As you requested, here¹s one comment on the draft BC position on Post Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM): Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a ³blind eye² to infringements. I¹m a fan of clever phrases such as ³turn a blind eye², but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far. One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are highly automated processes. There is no human ³eye² looking at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly, I suggest replacing the two ³blind eye² concerns in the BC comments with this statement: > Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated > function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess > whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself constitute > bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to > perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry > Operator¹s Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT > Final Report. Again, thanks for working this on our behalf. > -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC > position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don¹t hear anything on > whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the > GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI. > Attachment:
Common Ground Paper v1.4-clean.docx
|