ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's Meeting

  • To: "Smith, Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's Meeting
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:23:43 -0400

Thank you very much.
I agree on all counts, and would be quite grateful if you would update
the chart and circulate.


        From: Smith, Kelly W [mailto:kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:13 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on
Today's Meeting

        I propose the following alternative language for principle #7
(new language in red): 
        The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM SHOULD
be reasonable and each gTLD applicant MUST identify in its application
the basis of its fee calculation. on which it anticipates charging fees.

        I propose the following language regarding validation (revised
from #8, which we did not agree on).  If we cannot reach agreement, I
believe this at least has support:

        The Prior Rights on which a party bases its participation and
seeks to protect in an RPM SHOULD be subject to actual validation, at
least if the validity of such rights is challenged validated.  

        I propose the following new principle (based on the questionable
inclusion of U.S. registrations as a rights basis in the .asia launch),
and am happy to hear suggestions regarding alternative language:

        To the extent a gTLD is intended for/targeted to a particular
geographic region, the Prior Right on which a rights owner bases its
participation in the RPM SHOULD originate from the laws of a country in
that region.

        Finally I agree with Avri's comments concerning applicability to
IDNs, and perhaps we can use this language, as the final principle:

        The aforementioned principles should equally apply to both

        Kristina, let me know if you'd like me to reflect these in a
further redline, or if you'll be collecting everyone's comments into a
new version before the call tomorrow.


        Kelly Smith 
        Intel Corporation 

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina 
        Sent: May 14, 2007 2:29 PM 
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
        Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's


        Attached is an updated proposals chart that reflects the
discussion today.  I have also attached a redline.  As you will see, I
have indicated the current level of support (based on my notes) for the
proposals we discussed and as we discussed revising them.  Please review
them and let me know ASAP if I have mischaracterized the "revised"
proposal and/or the level of support.  

        Tim, once you've had a chance to review, would you please post
whether any of these specific points could be used instead of your
principles 1-6?  I will create a consolidated proposals chart shortly
before our call on Wednesday.


        <<Redline PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC>> <<05142007 PRO WG
Proposals Chart.DOC>> 

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy