ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-igo-ingo]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: FW: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?

  • To: "'Evan Leibovitch'" <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: FW: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?
  • From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:33:06 +0000

Evan,

As you yourself have acknowledged, we are considering a spectrum of potential 
protections, not merely so-called “blocking mechanisms.”  We are not talking 
here about qualification criteria for a reserved name (or any other particular 
RPM), we are talking about a threshold qualification for further consideration 
by the WG.  We won’t even get to the question of whether reserved names as a 
particular RPM should require a particular set of criteria if our criteria are 
so high that all INGOs save two are eliminated at the gates, or what the role 
of “harm and abuse” is.

Furthermore, my concern is not just that the bar is too high, but that it is 
arbitrary in either of these options.

From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:11 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FW: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?


Hi Gregory.

On 13 February 2013 13:05, Shatan, Gregory S. 
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am deeply troubled by both Option A and “Option C” (to use Avri’s term for 
the disjunctive “or” version of Option A).   Unless we adopt broad meanings to 
both the first and second prongs of these option, either of these options will 
have the effect of eliminating virtually every INGO (other than the IOC and the 
RCRC) from our further consideration, and may have similar effects for IGOs as 
well.

Without a clear and non-hypothetical demonstration of harm and abuse, there is 
excellent  reason to have a high bar regarding the provision of blocking 
mechanisms that are not even available to international trademark holders.

On other words, I'm not troubled by this.

- Evan





* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy