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

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

Margie and others,



A survey and study was already done for the 2000 TLDs both by Summit
Strategies and by WIPO (for some of the TLDs).  I would argue that the
results from both show what I have communicated.  Has anyone read this
report?  http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf

 

 

 

 

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

NeuStar, Inc. 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:14 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG

 

I agree with Mike R. on this point.   Jeff's observations may be
confirmed in the results of the survey, but we may also learn of other
important issues to address that may be highlighted by the survey.    We
should, however, start tackling the solutions to these issues, since
there is no point in delaying these discussions further.

 

Margie 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:51 AM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG

 

I appreciate the foresight of Jeff and Mike P. in projecting what
everyone else in the community will collectively say in response to the
proposed questionnaire.  They may indeed be correct, but I think our
analysis will be much stronger if we take opinions from anyone who wants
to give them, beyond two experts representing registry interests.

 

As for Tim's issue about collecting fact vs. opinion, that is quite a
hazy line and seems obvious to me that we want to collect opinion
primarily, along with some hard facts.  I see no reason for two distinct
surveys, and think we should push forward with this questionnaire,
appropriately labeled as a non-scientific survey designed to provide
rough input into our WG analysis.

 

Given the timeframe for our work, we will need to begin discussing these
issues as a WG without benefit of the results of the questionnaire.  

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:20 AM
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 <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.