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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree that it is not a given.   For me it is certainly a gating requirement 
for supporting any second level policy, but that is personal at this point - 
though I beleive that equal policy cross incumbents and new gTLDs is a 
principle that NCSG supports in all cases: any policy imposed on new gTLDs must 
be retroactively imposed on all incumbents.

I agree that it is not easy, that is why I keep bring it up.

One thing, I think we need to take the grandfathering into account when making 
decisions about granting the special protections for IGO/INGO.

- They tell us something about the current state of abuse 
- They stop any ongoing abuse that the group deems sufficient to require 
special protection on new gTLDs
- and if it turns out that it does not make sense to impose it on the 
incumbents, then perhaps we should not require it of new gTLDs either.

avri


On 27 Jun 2013, at 09:02, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> 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