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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim,
On review of some of my edits, I think you may be right.  The issues themselves 
presents situation where discussions tend to become convoluted.  However, some 
of my edits should provide some value I believe to better crystalize about 
different sides of issues.
That said, I think perhaps going back to Jeff's points makes most sense, and 
think is not out of line with your suggestion with regards to the direction for 
which the WG should take.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:38 PM
> To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG
> 
> 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, dont 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,
> shouldnt 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.