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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I would be happy to allow Afilias/.mobi and EURid with the ability to
modify the Sunrise definitions.

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

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:49 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this
version ONLY

Jeff,

If we use the definition you have added, then fairness dictates we
provide your Law Department counterparts at Afilias, dotMobi and EURid -
who are not WG members - the opportunity to provide their definitions of
Sunrise Period/Process/Challenge.  Given that the .biz PoC report
contains definitions in the "Definitions and Acronyms Used" Section,
using these definitions - which I had presumed would be acceptable to
NeuStar - seemed to be a good way to avoid that entire issue.

Kristina  

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:02 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this
version ONLY

Kristina,

Thanks for your response.  I will respond to each point separately later
today.

However, with respect to definitions of the IP Claims, STOP, etc., I
appreciate your reference to the PoC report (which I primarily
authored), but one thing you fail to point out is that there are pages
and pages that describe the process.  Yes, there is a short definition
in the PoC report, but that definition only makes sense in the context
of the rest of the PoC.  What exactly is your issue with using the
definition I have put into the survey?  After all, those who are not
familiar with the .biz launch who respond to the questionnaire should be
given more context than the short definition.  

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

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:03 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this
version ONLY

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 [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:21 PM
To: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
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 [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:46 PM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
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