<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey
- To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:32:40 -0700
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
First, the questions where I believe a *no opinion* option should be
added:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, and
29.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">(Note that question 7 is missing the check boxes
altogether.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Second, I apologize for not being available until this week and have not
had the opportunity to review the survey until today. I understand the desire
to move this along quickly, but after further thought and review I don't
think the survey is ready for prime time. There are really two
surveys being attempted here and they are intertwined in a way that I believe
is going to risk the integrity of the results. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
There is one subset of the survey questions that attempt to collect
information on past/existing mechanisms – were they used by the
respondent, how were they used, what were the results, etc. These pertain to
principal task a) as described in the Background section.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
There is another subset of the questions that attempt to collect
opinions on how things should work going forward with new TLDs. Those are the
questions we have heard the most concerns about today, questions 23 and 24 for
example. These pertain to principal b) as described in the Background
section.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
I strongly suggest that we either split these out into two distinct
surveys (my preference) or that at the very least we regroup them into two
distinct sections on this single survey with an appropriate explanation and/or
purpose statement for each based on a) and b) in the
Background.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Questions that should go with a):<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">1-7, 9-11, and 17-21<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Questions that should go with b):<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">8, 12-16, 22-29<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Questions 6 and 7 are somewhat border line and I could live with them
being in either group. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>
Either way (combined or separate) I think we should spend more time
appropriately framing the questions I have grouped in b), and make sure
that all participants have had ample opportunity to get their ideas
incorporated.</o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P><BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice
President<BR>Corp. Development & Policy<BR>The Go Daddy Group, Inc.<BR><BR>
<div name="wmMessageComp"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey<BR>From: Tim Ruiz
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 9:35 pm<BR>To:
"Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh
<mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>
<DIV>
I agree with Jeff's reasons for why both questions have absolutely no
place on this questionaire, and in fact I believe both questions threaten the
survey's intergrity as they are clearly leading.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
I thought the goal of the survey was to gather information. I don't see
us yet at the point where we are ready to shop ideas around. There certainly
has been no discussion or established consensus among us about rapid
take down as a possible mechanism.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development & Policy<BR>The Go
Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Mobile: 319-329-9804<BR>Office: 319-294-3940<BR>Fax:
480-247-4516<BR><A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=tim%40godaddy.com');; return
false;" href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR>How am I doing? Please contact my
direct supervisor at <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=president%40godaddy.com');;
return false;" href="mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>president@xxxxxxxxxxx</A> with any feedback.<BR><BR>
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy
of this message and its attachments.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG:
Draft Survey<BR>From: "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 8:06 pm<BR>To:
"Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><PRE>I think in the end you made my point.
The focus of this working
group
(which is really a subset of the new gTLD process) is to focus on NEW
gTLDs and those issues that are UNIQUE to the introduction of new
gTLDs. The focus, in my opinion, should NOT be on issues that apply
across the board to all gTLDs today.
In other words, Sunrise processes or IP claims processes are UNIQUE
issues to introducing new gTLDs and do not apply to existing TLDs
today. Thus, they should be addressed in this working group.
Contrast that with typosquatting, Phishing, malware, bots, etc. and
protection of other rights which are NOT UNIQUE to new gTLDs and may
be issues for all TLDs. This should be the subject of a separate PDP
that applies to all gTLDs.
Again this is my opinion.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development
NeuStar, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:34 PM
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PRO WG: Draft Survey
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:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neuman%40neustar.us');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@neustar.us</A>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:33 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:38 PM
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Peter Gustav Olson - pgo
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Liz Williams; <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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:
<A href="http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/Blocked_names/1%20blocked.txt";
target=_blank>http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/Blocked_names/1%20blocked.txt</A>
--------------------
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
På vegne af Rosette, Kristina
Sendt: 10. april 2007 20:06
Til: Liz Williams; <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:16 AM
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX.ComGNSO.pro-wg&uid=94#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|