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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Tim, 

You're right about timing.  I was calculating from when I sent it on the 1st 
instead of when it actually made it to the list, which took about a day.  That 
doesn't change the fact that we've been discussing the idea for a month.

I suggest we call it a questionnaire, which more accurately captures the 
informality of its design, scope and purpose.  Calling it a survey has, 
understandably, brought along certain assumptions about its design, scope and 
purpose.

Delaying it makes sense only if there will be active proposal of questions and 
discussion.  I encourage everyone who wants to propose questions to do so.  It 
would probably be useful if each question was accompanied by a short (very, 2-3 
words if possible) explanation for inclusion.

Kristina
Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC  20004-2401
voice:  202-662-5173
direct fax:  202-778-5173
main fax:  202-662-6291
e-mail:  krosette@xxxxxxx

This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been 
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.  
Thank you for your cooperation.





-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld




----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Neuman,Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Liz Williams 
<liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Apr 11 00:49:03 2007
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version ONLY

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. 
 
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.
 
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.


Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy





        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this
        version ONLY
        From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
        Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 11:03 pm
        To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Williams"
        <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        
        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: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=91891#Compose>
  [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=91891#Compose>
 ]
        
        On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
        
        Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:21 PM
        
        To: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=91891#Compose>
 
        
        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  & Business Development 
        
        
        
        NeuStar, Inc. 
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        
        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=91891#Compose>
  [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=91891#Compose>
 ]
        
        On Behalf Of Liz Williams
        
        Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:46 PM
        
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=91891#Compose>
 
        
        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