RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Approach to guidelines

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

I would like to offer my support for the suggestions below.  I firmly
believe that each registry should have an appropriate mechanism to
protect the rights of others, but one size does not fit all. 


The one issue I have is with Jon's third point, namely, to use the IP
protection mechanism as a basis to judge registries involved in a
conflict where there are multiple applicants for a string.  Registries
are not Intellectual Property attorneys and should not be judged by the
mechanism the believe would satisfy IP owners.  I believe that should be
an area for negotiation after selection if the IP community or others
have an issue with the perceived lack of protection.  It is expensive
enough to prepare and submit an application for a TLD.  To put all the
weight on the registries to come up with the perfect PRO mechanism adds
that much more cost.  However, if after selection, there are issues with
the PRO mechanisms, those should certainly be discussed and commented on
during the negotiation process.

 

I also support the notion of providing educational guidelines to aid
future registries that do not have the IP expertise to develop an
appropriate PRO mechanism.


Thanks.

 

 

 

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 Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:37 PM
To: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Approach to guidelines

 

Apparently, a couple of folks had some follow-up questions related to my
e-mail.  I'll try to summarize my points:

 

*         The principle of protecting the rights of others is important
and should be recognized in the New gTLD Task Force Report. 

 

*         Registries should have discretion in selecting in what manner
they propose protecting the rights of others.  One size doesn't fit all.
This principle should be recognized in the New gTLD Task Force Report.

 

*         The method that a specific registry operator proposes to
utilize to protect the rights of others could be considered in deciding
which operator receives the string when there is contention -- this only
applies if a "beauty contest" method of allocation is approved.  This
principle should be recognized in the New gTLD Task Force Report.

 

*         The New gTLD Task Force Report finally should state that the
GNSO has set up a working group (PRO-WG) to provide non-mandatory
educational guidelines to prospective registries.  The Task Force Report
should not include or be held up waiting for such guidelines.  

 

*         The PRO-WG should work expeditiously to prepare educational
guidelines that would discuss the various options to protect the rights
of others, state the pros and cons of each method, and potentially offer
certain recommendations.

 

*         The PRO-WG guidelines should be provided to prospective
registries as part of the application process.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:20 AM
To: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Approach to guidelines

 

Working Group Members/New gTLD Committee Members:

 

My feeling is that this kind of document would be incredibly helpful to

prospective registries in determining in what manner they would protect

the rights of others.  Providing educational guidelines would enable

future registries to learn from the mistakes of, as well as the best

practices from, other registries.  It also would be helpful to

registrars and users in achieving some best practice standards in

implementing such protections. 

 

With that said, I think that we need to leave discretion in the hands of

the prospective registries to see what method of protection works best

for the proposed registry taking into account its prospective business

model and market.  I would think, therefore, that these guidelines

should not be included in the New gTLD Committee report.  Rather, in my

opinion, the report should acknowledge the importance of the principle

of protecting the rights of others, refer to fact that the GNSO has

established a working group to provide educational guidelines to

prospective registries, and state that registries have discretion in

implementing such protections, but that the selected method of

protection may be considered in the application process (to the extent

there is a "beauty contest" type of allocation.  

 

I absolutely support the important work on the guidelines, but

de-linking these guidelines from the actual New gTLD Committee report

would give the prospective registries, which may be concerned about

specific proscriptive measures, the ability to roll up their sleeves and

assist in providing a document that would be most useful and beneficial

to all concerned.  I don't think that we are on that road yet, and we

all are way too busy to spend time dealing with roadblocks and/or

needless work.     

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

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

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

On Behalf Of Liz Williams

Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:27 AM

To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Approach to guidelines

 

 

Everyone

 

I hope that the following notes are helpful to stimulate discussion  

about text which could be included in any "guideline" (for want of a  

better term) document.

 

This document would be, from my perspective, a major output of the  

group for the Committee to consider.

 

The attached document collates the existing new TLDs principles,  

recommendations and implementation guidelines which should be used as  

the first reference point.  All text should refer to that table so  

that we can "support" any recommendations.  We should also be  

proposing alternatives -- considering that it is unlikely that this  

group will reach consensus on the proposals?

 

At the end of the document there is a page to start writing up any  

guideline which may emerged from, in the first instance, email  

exchange amongst the group.

 

I don't recall who else volunteered to write this up -- perhaps an  

email exchange would be helpful first to get rough groundwork  

established.

 

Of course, any questions, just ask.

 

Liz

.....................................................

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

+32 2 234 7874 tel

+32 2 234 7848 fax

+32 497 07 4243 mob