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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that this is not low-hanging fruit.  I generally agree that 
grandfathering or other treatment of existing names should track protections 
offered -- but I would treat this as an assumption (for now) and not a 
conclusion.

I think we need to identify and lay out the spectrum of possibilities first.  
Our debate of the merits and issues of proposed outcomes will be made more 
useful by having all of them in front of us.  I think this tracks our WG's 
overall approach, which is a good one.

Greg
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device


----- Original Message -----
From: Claudia  MACMASTER TAMARIT [mailto:MACMASTER@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 08:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; GNSO IGO 
INGO <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Incumbents and any special second level principles 
that may be recommended


Grandfathering effect will of course depend on the kind of protection offered 
(applicant assistance  .... blocking, etc.).

As for acronyms, this list might be substantial.  And when it comes to 
blocking, exceedingly important.

Best,
Claudia

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 2013-06-27 14:25
To: Avri Doria; GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Incumbents and any special second level principles 
that may be recommended


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






                                                                * * *

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