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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I support this approach. Alan

At 27/06/2013 09:02 AM, 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