RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version ONLY

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>
Kristina, with all due respect, the draft survey was not posted until
the 2nd. That's 8 days not 10. And 5 of those days included the ICANN meeting 
during which many of us had other responsibilities. We are all volunteers 
afterall. </div>

<div>&nbsp;</div>

<div>
While I understand that we have a timeline, it is also important that
the data we collect from the survey has integrity and is useful. Otherwise I 
see no point in doing it, or how it could be referred to at all in any final 
report.</div>

<div>&nbsp;</div>

<div>
We very well may be able to agree on a form of survey by EOD Thursday.
But if not, we should take the additional time necessary to get there or decide 
not to do it.</div>

<div><BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development &amp; 
Policy<BR><BR></div>

<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on
this<BR>version ONLY<BR>From: "Rosette, Kristina" 
&lt;krosette@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 11:03 pm<BR>To: "Neuman, 
Jeff" &lt;Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "Liz 
Williams"<BR>&lt;liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx&gt;, 
&lt;gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR><PRE>Hello Jeff,



First, and most importantly, congratulations!



Thank you for posting these comments, many of which are extremely

helpful. I will be in meetings for almost the entire day tomorrow, which

is why I'm replying by email; otherwise, a call would be ideal as the WG

calls to discuss the survey have been very productive.



We agreed during our call today that additional work needs to be done,

which is why the revised survey was distributed and comments have been

requested by Thursday morning EST.  Unfortunately, given our reporting

deadlines, we really cannot delay it any longer.  We recognize that you

have had other demands on your time over the past few weeks.  However,

we have been discussing the possibility of a survey for quite some time,

two representatives of the Registry Constituency were present at the WG

meeting in Lisbon during which we brainstormed as to questions, the

first draft of the survey was posted to the entire list 10 days ago, and

it was the sole subject of last week's meeting.  In short, given our

time constraints, there have been numerous opportunities for WG members

and observers to propose questions, review proposed questions, and

otherwise comment.



We have not consulted with a professional survey organization because

the "survey" is not intended to accomplish the same goals as a "true"

survey, but is intended more as an information-gathering exercise to

obtain informal input from stakeholders.  We discussed this very issue

in our last call and agreed to include the language in the header of the

survey:  "The survey is not designed to meet strict data gathering

standards but will be used to provide some baseline information from

which additional work may be developed."   As I would likely omit

something from my summary of our purpose in preparing and distributing

the survey, you may want to listen to the recording of that call for the

entire discussion.



My specific comments are below:



Definitions.



IP Claim:  Thank you for adding a definition for IP Claim.  Because the

WG member who agreed to prepare the .biz TLD summary never did so and I

could not locate the .biz Proof of Concept report during our call, we

had nothing to draw from.  I propose, however, that we use instead the

IP Claim definition in the .biz Proof of Concept report (which I've

copied below for the list's convenience) or, if you prefer, a slightly

modified version that provides an illustrative list of the types of IP

rights on which an IP Claim could be based, which would allow greater

parallel to the Sunrise definition.



"Intellectual Property Claim (used in Phase 1 of .biz launch), also

referred to as "Trademark Claim Form" in the .biz Registry Agreement.

Established to help individuals and companies protect their trademarks

and service marks during the launch of the .biz TLD by enabling them to

stake a claim to a domain name prior to the commencement of service and

live registrations."



STOP:  Because some questions refer specifically to STOP Proceeding, it

would be easier for those persons not familiar with our jargon if we

included a separate definition.  Again, I propose we use the definition

from the .biz PoC report, modified to past tense:



STOP: Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (referred to as the Start-up

Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, or SUDRP, in the .biz Agreement). All

disputes between an IP Claimant and a domain name Registrant regarding

the registration of a .biz name are decided under the Start-Up Trademark

Opposition Policy (STOP), a unique dispute resolution solution that is

similar to the UDRP and RDRP, but with a lower burden of proof for

intellectual property owners. STOP was available only to intellectual

property owners who enrolled in NeuLevel's IP Claim Service. STOP

allowed a Claimant to prevail where he or she demonstrates that a domain

name was either registered in bad faith or used in bad faith.



Sunrise:  I believe the "original" definition, which was discussed at

length during the call, is more accurate, but I defer to our .eu

experts.  



Question 3 (numbers are those in Liz's version):  According to my notes,

we anticipated that even those successful in getting a name in a

particular TLD may not believe the RPM for that TLD was adequate.  We

could certainly include a separate field for comment instead of trying

to cram it into the current question.  Would that help?



Questions 5-8:  These questions are a principal reason why we extended

comment on the survey; you've definitely identified a problem area.  For

example, some WG members were going to propose additional categories for

question 8; we also discussed adding a question whether RPM should not

cover any of the rights listed in #5.  Also, personal names and entity

names are generally not considered unregistered trademarks in civil law

countries.  



Question 9:  Your point about lawyers is a good one; we've covered it

more broadly in question 1.



Question 10:  This came up today, and your question indicates

clarification would definitely be helpful.  My notes aren't clear, but I

recall this question was intended to get at whether the parties could

have resolved the dispute through another means.



Question 12:  Your revision raises a good point, but we tried to avoid

presumptions about the content of future Sunrise.  In that context,

would this be an acceptable revision:  In the event a Sunrise Process is

used by a future gTLD, how do you believe domain names within that TLD

should be allocated if there are multiple persons or entities eligible

for a Sunrise registration for a particular domain name?



Question 13:  Again, a good point.  Would the WG member who proposed

this question respond with some suggested wording that would clarify?



Question 18:  While I suspect NeuStar's defensive registration

distribution is far from unique, the WG Statement of Work outline

specifically calls for a discussion of "new issues that may have

developed" as a result of the introduction of RPM.   One key issue

identified by many IP owners is an increase in defensive registrations.

If we were also intended to  cover .com, etc. than I would agree with

including those TLDs, but we are not.  



Questions 20-21:  The fact that we do not have many

implementation-specific questions has been raised repeatedly by many,

including me.  The absence is solely attributable to the participation

point I initially noted.  Additional registry- and registrar-specific

questions are absolutely welcome, but they will need to be posted to the

list for comment within the timeframe we've got to work with.



Questions 23-24:   The WG SoW doesn't limit us to past pre-launch

mechanisms.  I think we need to be open to alternative mechanisms and

these questions are, I believe, intended to informally seek reaction to

another alternative. Other alternatives could certainly be included and

these alternatives were the only ones put forth in connection with the

drafting process. Perhaps another way to approach these questions and

mechanisms would be to develop a list of possible alternatives and have

participants rank them or tick the box for those that they may be

willing to support.  Suggestions anyone?



Questions 27-28:  These questions are not intended to presuppose a

Sunrise mechanisms.  As I understand them, they are intended to propose

a solution to certain structural objections (for lack of a better

phrase) associated with Sunrise processes implemented to date.  To the

extent that the IP Claim process implementation generated certain

structural objections, questions that are intended to propose solutions

to those objections are definitely welcome.



I look forward to your comments.



Sincerely yours,

Kristina 









-----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&amp;type=replyall&amp;folder=INBOX&amp;uid=91891#Compose";>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&amp;type=replyall&amp;folder=INBOX&amp;uid=91891#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]

On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:21 PM

To: 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&amp;type=replyall&amp;folder=INBOX&amp;uid=91891#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>

Cc: Neuman, Jeff

Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this

version ONLY



All,



Please find enclosed some comments I have on the survey.  Again, I

apologize I could not have joined in person, but I am available after

today.



There are a number of issues with the proposed survey and I think work

still needs to be done.  There are lots of undefined terms and questions

that I believe are not likely to lead to objective results.  Have we

consulted with any professional survey organizations that could help us

develop a truly objective and meaningful survey?





I am available to discuss my comments at any time.



Thanks.







Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 

Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  &amp; 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&amp;type=replyall&amp;folder=INBOX&amp;uid=91891#Compose";>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&amp;type=replyall&amp;folder=INBOX&amp;uid=91891#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]

On Behalf Of Liz Williams

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:46 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&amp;type=replyall&amp;folder=INBOX&amp;uid=91891#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>

Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version

ONLY





The deadline for any additional comments by noon UTC Thursday 12 April.

Sooner is better.



I will send this out by COB Brussels time Thursday 12 April.  I will try

to have it posted to ICANN's public participation site and have it

distributed through to the various lists.



Liz

.....................................................



Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

+32 2 234 7874 tel

+32 2 234 7848 fax

+32 497 07 4243 mob











</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>