RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version ONLY
I agree. Calling it a questionnaire helps frame it more appropriately. I've attached an example of the structure I suggest for the questionnaire. I'm no wordsmith so it could probably use some polish, but you'll get the idea. If we restructure the questionnaire in this way it will alleviate a lot of the concerns I have, and hopefully for others as well. I think it would also help later when we attempt to tabulate and use the results. Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version ONLY From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 6:23 am To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> Cc: <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 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 Attachment:
GNSOPROWGQuestionnaire_tr_edits.doc |