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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Presuming this interpretation,

> -          Second-level names matching a protected identifier that 
> are not registered within an existing gTLD, shall be immediately 
> reserved from registration and effort shall be maintained to recover 
> existing registered names until compliance with the policy is achieved.
"and effort..." really belongs as an alternate approach in the next 
bullet covering what happens if a name IS registers.
I believe that we have been using the term "protected" in a generic 
way that includes TMCH usage and URS/UDRP, and not just BLOCKED, but 
in this document, it seems to mean blocked.
The last bullet is not really needed, since that presumably would be 
the case for ALL TLDs (if re recommend it).
"If a second-level name that matches a protected identifier is 
deleted following the expiration process (bypass Registrar auction), 
then the name shall not be reallocated and subsequently deemed 
ineligible for registration per the defined policy." does not capture 
the point that I was making. Under current registration agreements, a 
name that is deemed to be not renewed by the registrant (but has been 
autorenewedon an interim basis by the registry), may be reassigned to 
a third party (perhaps but not necessarily by auction) without the 
involvement of the original registrant (and that registrant may or 
may not benefit financially from the transaction). The name is never 
actually "deleted". This is the type of transaction that I was saying 
must not be allowed. Since it is functionally equivalent to a 
drop/add without the registry being notified.
Alan

At 29/08/2013 08:18 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >