RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Aftermarket Perspective

["Matt Serlin" <matt.serlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies for the few days delay on this, but I wanted to think through
the points which were raised on the call the other day in relation to
what my initial response was.

 

After thinking through it more, I would like to reiterate the concerns
expressed on the call earlier this week. While I think the idea of this
survey is a very good idea, I do not support the notion of sending this
to a specific segment of the registrant community as the results we get
back will be obviously skewed toward that narrow perspective.

 

I will support whatever the group decides, but will continue to push for
wider distribution of this survey so as to collect more meaningful,
community-wide feedback.

 

Regards,

Matt

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 9:27 AM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Bob Mountain; Steele,Barbara; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx; Sedo ::
Simonetta Batteiger
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Aftermarket Perspective

 

Good points, Mikey.

 

And to expand on my thoughts on the call, perhaps it would be useful to
differentiate between "direct" and "indirect" harms associated with
hijacking when asking for experiences.

 

Direct Harm = Had a name hijacked or unknowingly purchased a hijacked
name.

 

Indirect Harm = The costs associated with performing due diligence,
etc., to ensure that one's inventory is not tainted by hijacked names.
Also negative PR / public perception for an individual company or the
entire aftermarket industry due to the co-mingling of legitimate and
illicit inventory.

 

 

J.

 

        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Aftermarket Perspective
        From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Tue, September 07, 2010 10:12 am
        To: "Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger" <simonetta@xxxxxxxx>
        Cc: Bob Mountain <bmountain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steele, Barbara"
        <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx"
        <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        here is my contribution to the survey (following up on my
comments on the call today).

         

        it would be nice to insert a line of questioning into the survey
that goes something like this:

         

        -- do you support the goal of rapidly returning a hijacked
domain to its owner?

         

        -- if you support the goal of rapid-return of a hijacked domain,
but disagree with the approach taken by the WG, what approach would you
suggest instead?

         

        regarding Matt's point (about who receives the survey)...  maybe
one way out would be to clearly state the **use** of the information
gathered.  i share Matt's concern that we are seeking an
intentionally-biased sample right now.  so if the results of this survey
are going to be the basis of determining policy then we need a broader
sample.  but if the use of the survey is to inform policy-making, and it
is made clear that this is not a representative group and their views
may not prevail when balanced against the broader community of
stakeholders, then i'd be OK going with a narrow focus.

         

        mikey

         

         

        On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger wrote:

        
        
        

        

        Thank you for your input! I will be on vacation September 7th
through 15th  and will miss our workgroup calls during that time.

        I will coordinate with Bob on who I can start contacting in the
coming week anyway so that we don't lose much additional time.

         

        Simonetta

         

         

        From: Bob Mountain [mailto:bmountain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 11:38 AM
        To: Steele, Barbara; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger
        Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Aftermarket Perspective

         

        Thanks Barbara!
        Mtn.
        
        
        
        On 9/3/10 11:32 AM, "Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://791/BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

        Thanks to Bob and Simonetta for pulling this together.  I think
that it looks very good.  I would recommend a few modifications for
clarity and to solicit detailed feedback vs. yes/no responses.  I have
highlighted the recommended modifications in red in the text below.
Thanks again for drafting this.
         
        
        Barbara Steele 
        Compliance Officer / Director of Policy 
        
        From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://791/owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Mountain
        Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:41 PM
        To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
<x-msg://791/Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx> 
        Cc: Simonetta Batteiger
        Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Aftermarket Perspective
        
        Hello everyone, 
        On the Aug 24 call James Bladel asked Simonetta and I to gather
some aftermarket perspective on ETRP.   We've put together a list of
questions and a number of aftermarket cohorts.  Please feel free to
reply with any comments or suggestions by end of day Monday Sept 6.
We'll begin reaching out next week.
        
        Best!
        Mtn.
         

        
        -- 
        Robert J. Mountain
        Vice President, Business Development
        NameMedia, Inc.
        mtn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <x-msg://791/mtn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
        C: +1-508-878-0469
        O: +1-781-839-2871
        F: +1-781-839-2801

         

        

        - - - - - - - - -

        phone  651-647-6109  

        fax   866-280-2356  

        web  http://www.haven2.com

        handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google, etc.)