ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's Meeting
  • From: "Smith, Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:34:17 -0700

Please see attached revision that includes the below additions.  
Kelly Smith


From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Smith, Kelly W
Sent: May 15, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's

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 ASCII/LDH
TLDs and IDN TLDs. 

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 Meeting 


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

Attachment: 05152007 PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC
Description: 05152007 PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy