RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon, sorry but I can't agree with most of your edits. I think your
edits actually enhance the bias and are even more leading than they
were before. 



I am committed to continue work within this WG as cooperatively as
possible. That said, since some have voiced their opinion about the
eventual outcome of this WG, I'll like to add my thoughts on that FWIW.




I am impressed with the participants' efforts, with Kristina's
leadership, and the efforts and patience of Liz is outstanding as
always. But personally, I think forming a WG for this purpose was not a
wise decision by the committee or Council. Or at least, that the terms
of work are not appropriate. 



I find it hard to believe that the Council does not realize what Mike
and Jeff have already pointed out. And I don't believe there is any way
that this WG will come to any rough consensus on recommendations of any
sort. Consensus by a count of participants in the WG would not truly
represent consitituent consensus. In fact, at least one constituent
group is not even represented here. 



What I do believe this WG could do is gather facts and data and put it
in a form for the committee to use in furthering its work. The
committee and Council should then seek responses from individual
constituent groups on the other terms of work assigned to this WG. 



If the WG does move forward under its current mandate, we should
ourselves take that approach and save us all a lot of time and
potentially pointless debate. The WG members would be tasked with
soliciting responses and/or statements from their constituent group on
the recommendation portion of the terms of work. Those would be
compiled in the report along with the empirical data we've collected.
That seems a much more reasonable approach than spending weeks in
debate and ending up with pretty much the same thing. 





Tim Ruiz

Vice President

Corp. Development & Policy

The Go Daddy Group, Inc.



 



 -------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG

From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 9:45 am

To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>



  I very much agree with Jeff's points.  And look forward to the
creative discussion about how we can improve the PRO processes for
coming new gTLDs.   Attached also are my thoughts and edits to the
draft questionnaire, which I did find seemingly biased in a way that
certain questions were framed for an anticipated answer.  Some of the
edits attempt to balance them out and to try to extract more thoughts
from whom ever is responding to the questionnaire.   Edmon           
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:20 PM

To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG   A number of us are
struggling with trying to come up with a perfect questionnaire to send
out to obtain data.  However, don?t we really already know what answers
we are going to get from the questions?    As a registry that has
introduced (either directly or indirectly) several new TLDs including
.biz, .us and .travel among others, I personally believe the results of
the questionnaire will show that:   1)  Trademark owners and businesses
believe some sort intellectual property rights mechanism is needed in
the introduction of new gTLDs.   2)  Any mechanism that is introduced
should take all steps possible to minimize fraudulent or abusive domain
name registrations during the launch process. 3)  Each of the processes
introduced prior, whether Sunrise or IP claim, had issues with their
implementation and these issues need to be resolved for any future
launch.  Implementation issues involve (a) verification of
claims/registrations, (b) dispute resolution mechanisms, (c) which
marks are deserving of protections, etc. 4)  Registries believe that
the existing mechanisms are too costly (both in terms of business,
operations, support and legal) and present a burden to introducing new
gTLDs. 5)  Defensive Registrations are issues both to trademark owners
and to domain name registries.  For trademark owners and businesses,
defensive registrations can amount to a significant cost to their
companies and to registries, purely defensive registrations do nothing
to enhance the utility of the new TLD ? they merely cerate a carbon
copy of other TLDs.  Contrary to what some believe IP Launch processes
are not a boon to registries and amount for a small insignifanct
portion of the total domains registered in a particular TLD.   Given
the facts above, which I believe most would concede in some form,
shouldn?t we focus on creatively brainstorming new solutions to these
issues (and there may be others), rather than spending our time on a
survey/questionnaire where we already know the outcome.   Maybe this is
too radical, but I thought I would toss it out there.   Jeffrey J.
Neuman, Esq. 

Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development  NeuStar,
Inc. 

Loudoun Tech Center 

46000 Center Oak Plaza 

Sterling, VA 20166 

p: (571) 434-5772 

f: (571) 434-5735 

e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx    PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The information contained in this e-mail communication and any attached
documentation may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected
from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated
recipient(s).  If the reader or recipient of this communication is not
the intended recipient, or an employee or agent of the intended
recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by return e-mail and promptly delete the original
electronic e-mail communication and any attached documentation.  Receipt
by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any
attorney-client or work-product privilege.