[bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Position statement of Intellectual Property Constituency

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, thanks for volunteering to lead a draft of comments for the IRTP-B
WG.  Just this morning I told the WG Chair that we would not be submitting
anything at this time, as we had no volunteers despite a couple requests.
But I am sure Michele and the WG will appreciate our input even if a few
weeks late.  Below, with attachments, is email I sent you a couple weeks
ago, with background and asking you to volunteer J

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:46 PM
To: 'Berry Cobb'; 'Mike O'Connor'; chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Position statement of Intellectual
Property Constituency

 

Gents, just seeing this stmt from the IPC, and recalling the RyC statement
also.  Wondering whether you have reviewed and maybe we could just support a
stmt from the BC along the lines "we agree with the IPC and the RyC
comments" and/or include any differences that we have?  Maybe a better way
forward than to ignore the call for stmts, as we have done so far, and we
can get something out to the BC List to chew on, in hopes of submitting to
the WG in mid Nov?

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:01 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Position statement of Intellectual Property
Constituency

 


------ Forwarded Message
From: Anil George <avgeorge@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:28:39 -0700
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fw: Position statement of Intellectual Property Constituency

Marika,

Here's the IPC comment.

Anil

  _____  


 From: "Metalitz, Steven" [met@xxxxxxx]
 Sent: 10/12/2009 04:53 PM MST
 To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
 Cc: Anil George; <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>; <Cyril.Chua@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "David
Taylor" <drd@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; "Kristina Rosette"
<krosette@xxxxxxx>; "Mark Bohannon" <mbohannon@xxxxxxxx>; "Sam Mosenkis"
<smosenkis@xxxxxxxxx>; "Steven J. Metalitz" <met@xxxxxxx>;
<udecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: Position statement of Intellectual Property Constituency


Attached please find the position statement of the Intellectual Property
Constituency re the questions posed regarding IRTP-B.  

Steve Metalitz, IPC president 

<<IRTP-PartB-PDP_IPC position statement 101209 (2404846).DOC>> 


------ End of Forwarded Message

Attachment: IRTP-PartB-PDP_IPC position statement 101209 (2404846).DOC
Description:

--- Begin Message ---

• To: <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Statement of the Registries Stakeholder Group - IRTP PDP B
• From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:58:35 -0800

My experience with Lock features has been pretty consistent with top-tier
registrars, and very inconsistent with lower tiers.  The use and rules
around the Lock feature are certainly a special hurdle for newer domain
owners to overcome.  So I would agree, that the use of this tool should be
consistent and easy.  

 

We'll be sure to keep a target on this topic.  Thanks.

 

 

Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891

 

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 16:51
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Berry Cobb'; chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Statement of the Registries Stakeholder
Group - IRTP PDP B

 

Gents,

 

My quick read is that all of this makes sense, even though it comes from the
RyC!  Except I am not sure I agree with them about allowing registrars to
use lock status however they want.  I think that also should be standardized
and there should be standard "minimally easy" methods to remove lock status.


 

No pressure on us to submit comments or anything, just forwarding my
thoughts to see if we have consensus among our little BC team.  No rush.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Statement of the Registries Stakeholder Group -
IRTP PDP B

 

Marika and Giselle,

Attached, please find the statement of the Registries Stakeholder Group
relating to the IRTP PDP Part B.  Thank you.

 

-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services

 

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Berry Cobb'" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: FW: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Statement of the Registries Stakeholder Group - IRTP PDP B
• From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:51:21 -0800

Gents,

 

My quick read is that all of this makes sense, even though it comes from the
RyC!  Except I am not sure I agree with them about allowing registrars to
use lock status however they want.  I think that also should be standardized
and there should be standard "minimally easy" methods to remove lock status.


 

No pressure on us to submit comments or anything, just forwarding my
thoughts to see if we have consensus among our little BC team.  No rush.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

 
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Statement of the Registries Stakeholder Group -
IRTP PDP B

 

Marika and Giselle,

Attached, please find the statement of the Registries Stakeholder Group
relating to the IRTP PDP Part B.  Thank you.

 

-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services

 

Attachment: GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Statement-IRTP PDP B.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF Document

--- End Message ---