RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

Congratulations on your new baby.

We discussed this and, I believe, agreed that these issues are not outside of 
our mandate.  I understand our mandate, in essence, is to look at the past 
methods employed to protect third party rights, and make recommendations for 
future TLDs.  So I think it is appropriate to ask for support in principle, and 
take comments that anyone would like to offer as to these possible alternative 
methods of protecting rights.

Ultimately we need to address two of the major problems with relying on 
defensive registrations to protect rights:  first is that infringers are 
creative and there is a significant cost for defensive registrations, so that 
not all possibilities can be registered; and second, often domains are not 
absolutely or necessarily infringing until they are used in an infringing 
manner.  (Third, registrars and registries who contribute knowingly to 
infringement may well be held liable for that.)  One way to remedy these 
problems is to develop a post-launch suspension procedure to deal with the most 
egregious and obvious cases of bad faith registration.  We need something 
exponentially more efficient than the UDRP, which changes the economics of 
typosquatting, at least, and makes phishing more difficult.

Ultimately, in response to the Note you added about Neustar's defensive 
registrations, I hope that such recommendations eventually will be considered 
as potential Consensus Policy, and then would apply to existing registries as 
well.  Meanwhile, we can and should ask thoughts on potential applicability in 
newTLDs.

Would you be happier if we changed the wording to add 'in principle' so 
responders do not feel they are giving opinion on any specific plan?  "Would 
you support, in principle, a post-launch mechanism..."

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by 
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any 
attachments.


-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:33 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey

All,

I know I have not been able to make the calls lately, due to the birth of my 
second daughter, so forgive me if I am commenting on items that have already 
been discussed.....but I have to jump in here and ask what relevance these 
questions have to the launch.  In addition, the questions below are vague at 
best and extremely biased at worst.

What does "evidently used in bad faith" mean?  Who makes the determination? How 
is the determination made?  You cannot ask questions on a survey that 
potentially have no bounds. 

These are areas WAY beyond our mandate I believe will accomplish nothing more 
than a delay of the new gTLD process which I believe most of us would argue has 
been too much delayed already.



Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:38 PM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey

Proposed redraft of Question 23, and one more as #24:

23.     Do you support a post-launch mechanism to suspend domains that are 
evidently used in bad faith for a phishing or malware attack?

24.     Do you support a post-launch mechanism to suspend domains that are 
evidently used in bad faith for typosquatting?  [Typosquatting is a form of 
cybersquatting which relies on users' typographical errors when inputting a 
website address into a web browser.]

Each should have Yes/No and 'please provide further info' fields.

Thanks.

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by 
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any 
attachments.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Peter Gustav Olson - pgo
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: SV: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey

Here is the list of dot-eu geographical and geopolitical names which were 
removed during sunrise:
 http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/Blocked_names/1%20blocked.txt
 


--------------------

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] På vegne 
af Rosette, Kristina
Sendt: 10. april 2007 20:06
Til: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Emne: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey

All,

Some potential definitions for consideration:

Sunrise period:  Period of time, before registration is open to the general 
public, during which domain name registration is limited to owners of 
specifically delineated intellectual property or analogous rights for domain 
names that match/correspond to/are identical to those delineated prior rights.  
Of the TLDs encompassed by this survey, the registries for the .info and .mobi 
gTLDs and the .eu ccTLD provided Sunrise periods. The .info and .mobi 
registries restricted eligible intellectual property rights to registered 
trademarks or service marks of national or supranational effect that had issued 
by registry-specific deadlines and were in force as of the Sunrise registration 
application filing date.  The .eu registry also included company name, business 
names, personal names, and [] as prior rights on which otherwise owners of such 
rights could base a Sunrise registration.

Sunrise Challenge:  Dispute resolution process whereby an unsuccessful 
Sunrise-eligible applicant challenges the Sunrise registration of another on 
the ground that the other's Sunrise registration violated the Sunrise 
registration conditions. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:16 AM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey

Colleagues

Please find attached an amended survey which we can discuss on tonight's call.  
I have tried to simplify and streamline where possible and make sure that the 
questions are as objective as we can make them.  I have also asked for 
assistance from the public participation site to see whether we can post the 
survey.

I think that we should further refine the key terms and explain them more 
clearly for lay users of the survey.  We need to complete this tonight to 
enable distribution tomorrow.

Kind regards.

Liz