<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG
- To: "Smith,Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:20:54 -0700
<div>
> address the feasibility of and implementation considerations
relating to past-used<BR>> rights protection mechanisms, and identify
alternative mechanisms.<BR></div>
<div>
I think there is a misunderstanding of our *mandate.* What Kelly
is paraphrasing is part of the *Suggested* Outline of Working Group Work
Plan. It is not a mandate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The mandate in this area is stated in the Purpose of the WG:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
(2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practices approach
<BR>
to providing any additional protections beyond the current registration
<BR>
agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the
<BR>
domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start
<BR>
up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive
<BR>
as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated
<BR>
into the material for the application process for new gTLD applicants.
<BR>
The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process
<BR>(PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
Simply put, all we are really tasked with here is recommending whether
or not there should be a best practices approach, NOT necessarily what those
best practices are. If we recommend such an approach, it would likely result in
a PDP (this WG's task is not a PDP). As I said, I think it unlikely that we can
come to rough consensus on this recommendation, let alone any expansion on
what the best practices if any should be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
I think it perfectly reasonable to push back on the terms of work if we
think it necessary. But if the majority of the WG prefers to move
forward under this current mandate I suggest the WG members be
tasked with soliciting responses and/or statements from their constituent group
on the recommendation portion. Those statements/responses would be compiled in
the report indicating who supports what. That seems a more reasonable
approach than spending weeks in debate and ending up with pretty much the same
thing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development & Policy<BR>The Go
Daddy Group, Inc.<BR><BR></div>
<div name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG<BR>From: "Smith, Kelly W"
<kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 3:00 pm<BR>To:
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><PRE>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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
[mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: April 11, 2007 10:17 AM
To: Peter Gustav Olson - pgo
Cc: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] NEW APPROACH TO WORK OF WG
<FONT color=#800000>> I think a consensus is necessary and possible</FONT>
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" <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=pgo%40PLESNER.COM'); return
false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>pgo<B></B>@PLESNER.COM</A>>
Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 11:27 am
To: <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>>
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
<A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=PGO%40PLESNER.COM');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>PGO<B></B>@PLESNER.COM</A>
__________________________________________________________________________________
PLESNER SVANE GRØNBORG AMERIKA PLADS 37 TEL +45
33 12 11 33
LAW FIRM 2100 COPENHAGEN FAX +45
33 12 00 14
DENMARK
<A href="http://www.plesner.com/"; target=_blank>WWW.PLESNER.COM</A>
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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
[mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:38 PM
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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" <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=edmon%40dotasia.org'); return
false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>edmon<B></B>@dotasia.org</A>>
Date: Wed, April 11, 2007 9:45 am
To: <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>>
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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
[mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:20 PM
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
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: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neuman%40Neustar.us');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=92039#Compose";>Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@Neustar.us</A>
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.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|