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

["Smith, Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>]

My comments:

Part of our mandate is to (taking the language from the Statement of Work) 
"Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights protection 
mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties."  The questionnaire 
is a necessary means to provide this evaluation.  It may very well be that we 
can anticipate the responses/views of the various constituencies, but in my 
view this is not a reason not to publish the questionnaire.   

I also frankly doubt whether this WG can present a consensus of all affected 
constituents.  Yet, our mandate goes beyond a fact finding mission.  Again from 
the Statement of Work, we are to address the feasibility of and implementation 
considerations relating to past-used rights protection mechanisms, and identify 
alternative mechanisms.  Given our timing, we need to begin these discussions 
as soon as possible.

As to specific comments on the questionnaire, I agree that questions 23 and 24 
concerning post-launch mechanisms, while touching on important questions, are 
beyond the scope of this WG.

Kelly Smith
Intel Corporation




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: April 11, 2007 10:17 AM
To: Peter Gustav Olson - pgo
Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG

> I think a consensus is necessary and possible



Peter, what I was trying to say is that even if the group comes to rough
consensus (and it very well may) it would not represent consensus of the
affected constituents. The largetest group of affected constituents is
not even represented in the WG.



What I think this WG is best capable of doing is gathering facts. That
could include a collection of views with indication as to who supports
them and whether or not a particular view has consensus support from
specific constituent groups. But again, in my opinion, a simple
consensus of this collection of WG participants on any specific
recommendation is not particularly meaningful.



While I am not thrilled about the questionnaire approach, I am trying to
support it and the work of this WG as best I can. If the questionnaire
is structured similar to what I propose I think the results will better
suit our needs for later discussions, whether those discussions take on
my suggested approach or yours.





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: "Peter Gustav Olson - pgo" <pgo@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 11:27 am

To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>



Here are my thoughts:

 

 

 

 As regards Mike P's question, I have no problems including this;

 

 anywhere in the questionnaire is fine, but a "GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS"

 

 section would be a good idea.

 

 

 

 I agree with Jeff's suggestion that this WG should end in

 

 brainstorming, on the basis of our collective experience and our

 

 discussions, including the facts and data gathered by the

 

 questionnaire.

 

 

 

 Mike P voiced the opinion that there should be no standard mechanism

 

 and that it should be left to the discretion of the new TLD to start a

 

 sunrise. Tim states he does not expect we can get a consensus. I

 

 respectfully disagree with both of these, and I think a consensus is

 

 necessary and possible. For example, Jeff described the sunrise as

 

 expensive for the registries - it is also considered expensive for the

 

 beneficiaries, so there's consensus there. During yesterday's

 

 conference Mike P mentioned that trademark owners were gaming the

 

 system to gain generic domain names; I expect there is consensus that

 

 this is bad judgment and should be dealt with. The main reason I

 

 volunteered for this WG is that my little head hurts too much after

 

 every new sunrise, with all the new rules and hoops that are - there

 

 just has to be a better way.

 

 

 

 As to brainstorming, I would venture that we could get consensus on

 

 the following: a new TLD business model should be not based on

 

 cybersquatting and defensive registrations, but should rather be based

 

 on ensuring that the new registry gets the premium price of its

 

 generic domains for the life of the domain. Domain name registrations

 

 are the distribution of scarce public resource, and should be

 

 auctioned to the highest bidder. Rather than sell valuable names at

 

 wholesale to the first come, first served lucky lottery winner for

 

 life, these should be "rented" for a limited amount of time to the

 

 highest bidder. Once we recognize the new registry's right to earn

 

 their profit on the valuable names that are in use, I think they will

 

 accept defensive removal of non-used names containing trademarks and

 

 other prior name rights. The sunrise process will be (much like

 

 dot-mobi): here's one group of names that the new TLD cannot sell

 

 (reserved names), and here's the group of generic dom!

 

 ain names that can be sold/rented at a premium. Granted there will be

 

 a little overlap between these groups, e.g. APPLE.ABC, etc., and

 

 actually resolving that issue ought to be the focus of this group. At

 

 any rate, a business model based on the expectation that a large

 

 portion of domain names will be purchased and maintained by trademark

 

 owners and/or cybersquatters is unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
__________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 PETER GUSTAV OLSON

 

 Attorney-at-Law

 

 

 

 PGO@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 
__________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 PLESNER SVANE GRØNBORG AMERIKA PLADS 37 TEL +45

 

 33 12 11 33

 

 LAW FIRM 2100 COPENHAGEN FAX +45

 

 33 12 00 14

 

 DENMARK 

 

 WWW.PLESNER.COM

 

 

 

 This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be

 

 privileged. If you 

 

 are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and

 

 delete this email 

 

 and any attachments without retaining copies or disclosing the

 

 contents to anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]

 

 On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz

 

 Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:38 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, 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 t!

 

 o 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.