RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] How IGO-INGO Recommendations Could Impact Incumbent Registries

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

I assumed that the list of items were not things we agreed to but rather 
suggestions that were made.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 7:31 AM
To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] How IGO-INGO Recommendations Could Impact 
Incumbent Registries



On 29 Aug 2013, at 02:09, Berry Cobb wrote:

> <IGO-INGO_Existing_gTLD_v0.1.docx>


The paragraph I have a question with is:

> Where a second-level registration within an existing gTLD matches a protected 
> identifier, the registration of said name, if registered prior to 
> implementation of policy protections, shall be handled like any existing 
> registered name within the gTLD (renewals, transfers, for sale, change of 
> registrant, etc.).

Even if the group is considering that registrants be allowed to renew, a 
position I do not support, I think we need to talk further about change of 
registrant.  

> Second-level names matching a protected identifier that are also registered 
> by a party other than the protected organization and bad faith use is 
> suspected, the protected organization may have access to RPMs like the UDRP, 
> pending a PDP to address policies in how the IGO-INGO organizations may 
> access them.


I think l we may need to discuss a stronger recommendation "may have access". 

That is, once the URS and UDRP are updated for the non trademark holders on the 
GAC lists, can these tools be used in reference to incumbent names.

avri