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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
you are right. At least at present we are merely gathering and discussing 
suggestions. 

Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 29.08.2013 um 14:06 schrieb "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
> 
> 
> 
>