Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Proposed Principles for discussion
Kristina Thanks so much for sending these. A couple of questions for the group to consider. 1. It was not my sense of the direction of the group that principle 1 -- all new TLDs must provide RPMs. Could that be confirmed please? 2. With respect to 1, the existing recommendation, why isn't the existing RAA sufficient to address that principle? 3. I have attached an overview of the principles and proposed recommendations and implementation guidelines -- take a look at Recommendation #2 & #3 on p3. I would have thought that was sufficient for new TLDs and for registrations within those TLDs 4. With respect to principle 2, these are ideas that would fall into implementation guidelines? What happens if a TLD applicant propose no RPM in its application? 5. Another question with principle 4. Referring to the survey results, you will see that registrants have listed that they have defensive registration results in both sponsored and generic TLDs. It seems to be that eligibility and membership verification mechanisms do not prevent defensive registration nor minimise the perceived necessity for having RPMs? We need far more robust statistics to justify the reasoning that just having a sponsored/ registrant verified system was sufficient to prevent defensive registrations? 6. Principle 6 is way too deep into the detail of registry operations -- surely how a registry accepts payment for an RPM (presuming that they have one) is up to them. 7. Principle 7 -- how do you determine those costs? Would any registry operator have any idea, going into the process, who would participate in an RPM to determine what any fee would be, prior to the process actually starting? 8. Principle 8 -- isn't this already done under the existing UDRP rules. Why wouldn't that system remain sufficient? It wasn't clear to me what rights the group would include in any RPM in any new TLD -- that needs further discussion. And then validated by whom at what cost? By the objector? 9. Principle 9 -- how is this different from Principle 8? 10. Principle 11 -- how could this process be automated? In any new round of TLDs how would one know what applications for registration would be false as we have no way of knowing what would appeal to a potential registrant 11. Principle 12 -- isn't that the same as Principle 8 12. Name Watch Service -- isn't it hard to comment on this idea without more details about what it's about? It sounds like a service a registry would offer to registrar customers (and would be subject to the Registry Services Funnel process) OR is it a registrar service OR is it a portfolio management service offered by trade mark attorneys to their customers? Talk to you tonight. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob Attachment:
GNSORecomOverview11May2007.doc On 14 May 2007, at 05:35, Rosette, Kristina wrote: <05132007 PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC>
|