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

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From Victoria McEvedy:

Glen --please forward for me--my group is not working for some reason.

It will come as no surprise that I very much agree with this from the
point of the NCUC. No one has explained the objective of this exercise
or what impact it will have, or weight, in terms of the WG's goals. I
have asked these questions but no answers have been forthcoming. How
does it help us a) document the additional protections or b) determine
whether to recommend to the new TLDs Committee a best practices
approach? My concern is that the "survey" will be used to circumvent our
work and without the balancing that should be involved. It will give us
the views of rightsholders and registeries and their views on how they
would like the system to operate. I have real problems with it and its
goals and I agree with many of the points that Jeff and Mike have
made. I have repeatedly considered whether I can add to it or amend it
in some way to address these issues, but I'm afraid I gain arrive at the
conclusion that this is not the way forward. If the WG is to proceed
with it then there should also be a discussion and an articulation as
to its purpose and its impact on the group's work. NCUC will also wish
to answer any conclusions drawn from it ---a process about which, again,
questions arise.


    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Rosette, Kristina <mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx>
    *To:* Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> ;
    gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
    *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:31 PM
    *Subject:* RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG

    Are our NomCom, NCUC, and Registrar Constituency members satified
    with this list of issues?

    Kristina

     *From:* owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
    [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff
    *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:20 AM
    *To:* gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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.