RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Incumbents and any special second level principles that may be recommended

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe we should add a question like the following to the charter:  What names 
proposed for protection are currently registered at the second level in 
existing gTLDs?  A related WG task with corresponding deliverable could be: 
identify names proposed for protection are currently registered at the second 
level in existing gTLDs/list of such names with their associated gTLD.

I think this would help the WG assess impact of grandfathering or removing such 
names.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:39 PM
To: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Incumbents and any special second level principles 
that may be recommended


Hi,

I have worked under the assumption that any names that do get special 
protections at the second level on new gTLDs should have the same protection on 
existing gTLDS.

My preference if for some set of processes for removing the names from existing 
holders thought the use of a carrot and stick approach.

At the very least all such names should become non-transferable and 
nonrenewable.  that too requires a policy decision and perhaps operational 
recommendations.

That is why I have felt that this is a complicated issue that must be discussed 
before we make any other decisions and I am very concerned about us not having 
discussed it instead assuming it was low hanging fruit.  To just assume that 
they will be blocked from that point further is, I beleive, insufficient.  I 
know it is a hard and knotty problem, but if it is fair for new Registries, it 
is fair for existing registries and both should be governed by the same set off 
policies.  If these special protections are as important as we are being told 
they are because of bad experiences in the existing market, then they must done 
across the board.

avri