RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations / Principles

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Tim,
 
Thank you for posting these recommendations.  They'll be helpful for our
discussions on Monday.
 
I do have two follow-up questions:
 
1.  Would you please clarify whose recommendations these are?  Are they
yours in your individual capacity?  In your capacity as Vice Chair of
the Registrar Constituency?  The informal views of the Registrar
Constituency?  The contextual information would be helpful to have.
 
2.   Would you mind elaborating on the context or circumstances in which
you believe the second recommendation ("gTLD operators should not
presume motives of potential registrants.") should be applicable or that
you intended it to address?    I have a fairly good idea, but I think it
would be helpful to others (and to me if my assumption is wrong).
 
Many thanks.
 
Kristina 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
        Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:54 PM
        To: Griffin,Lance
        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations /
Principles
        
        
        See the attached.
         
        1. I changed it to legal rights, the same term used in the SOW.
And show me where in the SOW certain legal rights are exempted from
consideration? Also, this WG, to my understanding, is not engaged in
consideration of top level labels.
         
        2. I attempted to define what I meant by Generic in the attached
revision. There may be no *legal* or *policy* definition of Generic
right now but there should be. A better definition could be crafted if
the Council decides to actually initiate a PDP on this subject.
         
        3. Cute. The typo has been fixed, again using the terminology of
the SOW.
         
        4. There are no ICANN documents for a lot of things that happen
on a pretty regular basis, no should there be any attempt to have one
for everything. Clearly, there are costs associated with implementing
and supporting any of the mechanisms being comtemplated. As any other
business, registries should be expected to recoup that cost and make a
profit. While I am sure Disney doesn't want to dip into its billions to
pay for the privilege that such mechanisms affords them, what
justification is there for not doing so?
         

        Tim 
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations /
Principles
                From: "Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Thu, May 10, 2007 11:41 am
                To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                Tim:
                 
                I think you need to provide some definitions before your
suggestion can be considered.  Also, I had understood that the
Registries/Registrars were only seeking guidelines, and not using the
words "best practices."  However, most of your suggestions seem to go
way beyond a guideline.  
                 
                1. What do you mean by "prior rights" in the following
phrase?  Where in the SOW does it say this WG should consider any prior
rights an applicant may have?  Who would determine what prior rights an
applicant has?  Does an applicant who has no travel business have a
prior right to use .travel?  Has ICANN issued a statement on the prior
rights of applicants?
                 
                All potential registrants have prior rights. 
                 
                2. What do you mean by " generic labels"?  Who would
determine what is generic and what is not.  On what basis.  Has ICANN
issued a statement on "generic labels"?  
                 
                3. In the title of your suggestion, what is a PRIO
right? 
                 
                4.  What is the basis for requesting costs plus
reasonable fees in a "prior rights mechanism"?  Is there an ICANN
document which provides for these reasonable fees?  If everyone has
prior rights, isn't this fee just a cost of doing business?
                 
                These are just a few initial thoughts.   

________________________________

                From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
                Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:20 AM
                To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Suggested Recommendations /
Principles
                
                
                Attached.
                
                Tim