ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-pro-wg] 9 April Call Summary, Action Item List, and Additional Call Scheduled

  • To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] 9 April Call Summary, Action Item List, and Additional Call Scheduled
  • From: "Smith, Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:15:17 -0700

As an initial matter, I agree with Lance in an earlier e-mail thread
regarding the statement "It is also understood that the overriding
recommendation of this WG will be that the selection of such processes
should be left up to the gTLD Registry Operators."  I do agree that
there is no one-size fits all rights protection mechanism, and that for
sponsored TLDs no RPM may be necessary (beyond the limited definition of
eligibility and naming requirements).  I envision that the registry
operators will propose RPMs in their applications for a new TLD, but
that ICANN would have some input into the adequacy of the mechanism. 
Following is my list of the RPM proposals/recommendations/practices I
think are most important.
1.  Sunrise Period.  If a new TLD is to include a Sunrise Period, I
recommend that a registry should require that the Prior Right be in
existence for a certain length of time before the Sunrise Period, to
address the issue of getting "quickie" trademark registrations (e.g. in
jurisdictions with no review for relative grounds) on the eve of the
Sunrise Period.   I am in favor of an auction procedure for competing
domain name applications by Prior Rights holders, as opposed to a First
Come First Served process.  I believe that Validation of Prior Rights
may only be necessary to the extent there are competing applications.  I
support the idea of an outsourced Standard Sunrise Service Provider.
2.  Name String Notification/Name-String Watch Service and Notification.
I support this model (in conjunction with a Sunrise Peroid), at least up
to the point that a challenged domain name applicant needs to verify its
intention to continue its application in the face of the claimed Prior
Right.  I think this may be enough of an incentive against abusive
registrations (as was shown in .biz, where a large percentage of
challenged applicants did not pursue the application), provided that the
verification of intention to continue cannot be automated by companies
automating the registration of domain names (e.g. perhaps a signed
document would need to be submitted).  I think that in any STOP or
similar mechanism, it is problematic to require the challenged applicant
to deposit money pending the outcome of a dispute, since good faith
applicants may not be able to afford such a sum. 
Kelly Smith


From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: May 09, 2007 1:01 PM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] 9 April Call Summary, Action Item List, and
Additional Call Scheduled 


Set forth below is a short summary of today's call. 

1.  Peter provided a high-level description of his proposal, which is
summarized in the RPM chart I circulated earlier today.  I provided a
summary of a variation on the "Watch Service" proposal, focusing on the
differences between it and Peter's corresponding proposal.  Among the
comments were (a) clarification that a challenge to a defensive removal
could be raised; (b) a question of why the watch service did not
anticipate a corresponding domain name registration application by the
rights owner challenging the registration; (c) a question of, in the
context of a watch service, what happens to the "challenged" domain name
if the rights owner challenge is successful and whether it was possible
to prevent the same applicant from seeking to register the name again.

2.  I provided a summary of the centralized validation process and
database proposal.  The primary concern articulated was that having only
one processor/database administrator raised competition concerns.  There
was some discussion about the feasibility of having multiple providers
and whether the "provider-shopping" incentives that may be implicated in
UDRP proceedings were implicated here.  Based on the discussion, it
appears that there is rough consensus that such a proposal is acceptable
as long as competition-related issues can be addressed.   

3.  We discussed the expected content and structure of the final report.
Liz provided guidance as to the particular components generated thus far
and those expected.  Attached for your reference is a copy of the IDN WG
final report.  

4.  To facilitate a list of proposals/recommendations/practices for
final discussion, we agreed that each WG member should post a list of
those RPM proposals/recommendations/practices that the respective member
believes are most important.   All lists are due by the close of
business (varying on each WG member's location) on Friday, 11 May.
The lists will be consolidated and circulated for discussion.  

5.  I propose that we use the same conventions used by the IDN WG for
characterizing proposals/recommendations/practices.  The conventions
appear on page 5 of the report, but I copy them below for convenience.
If you disagree with this proposal, please provide an alternative
convention structure.

For the expression of views, the Working Group agreed on the following
-       Agreement -  there is broad agreement within the Working Group
(largely equivalent to "rough consensus" as used in the IETF)

-       Support -  there is some gathering of positive opinion, but
competing positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached

-       Alternative view - a differing opinion that has been expressed,
without garnering enough following within the WG to merit the notion of
either Support or Agreement.

6.  Margie agreed to draft and circulate definitions of key terms.  We
designated the following terms for definition:  IP Claim, Sunrise,
Validation.  (If I've missed any, please post them.)  If you believe
there are additional terms for which definitions are required, please
post the terms and your proposed definitions.  

7.  We have scheduled another call before our final 16 April meeting.
It is scheduled for Monday, 14 May.  The time is unchanged. The
objective is to discuss the report in its then-draft form, with the
intention of discussing and finalizing the report on the 16th.  If you
cannot participate in the call on Monday, please be certain to post your
comments and views to the list by the scheduled time of the call so we
can discuss them.  


If I've missed anything, please feel free to post.  


<<GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report.DOC>> 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy