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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>
Currently, Registries are not required to justify most of their price
increases, and in fact, make no justification for their existing prices 
whatsoever. I would be interested in knowing what basis or precedent&nbsp;there 
is for any holder of&nbsp;legal rights of any kind to expect special treatment 
and require justification of&nbsp;or a basis for&nbsp;Registry pricing from new 
gTLD entrants. I propose this alternative language for #7:</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>
gTLD registry operators MAY charge&nbsp;fees&nbsp;for participation in
its RPM.&nbsp;The amount of such fees MUST be&nbsp;at the gTLD registry 
operator's sole discretion.</FONT></B></SPAN></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
Also, many of the suggested *principles* (which are actually proposed
policies) use the phrase Prior Rights. The SOW uses the phrase legal rights. 
There is a considerable difference. The latter does not, IMHO, refer solely to 
the rights of TM holders, famous names, etc. Whereas the implications of Prior 
Rights as is used in most of these policy statements implies that distinction. 
I propose that&nbsp;all suggested&nbsp;principles/policy statements&nbsp;use 
the phrase&nbsp;Legal Rights instead of Prior Rights to be consistent with our 
SOW.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: 
[gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's<BR>Meeting<BR>From: 
"Smith, Kelly W" &lt;kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, May 15, 2007 
3:13 pm<BR>To: "Rosette, &nbsp;Kristina" &lt;krosette@xxxxxxx&gt;, 
&nbsp;&lt;gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>All,</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN 
lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN 
lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>I propose the following alternative language 
for</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>principle</FONT> <FONT face=Arial 
size=2>#7</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> (new language in red)</FONT><FONT 
face=Arial size=2>:</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>
The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM SHOULD be
reasonable and each gTLD applicant MUST identify </FONT><FONT face=Arial 
color=#ff0000 size=2>in</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>its application the 
basis </FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=2>of its fee 
calculation</FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=2>.</FONT><FONT 
face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=2></FONT><STRIKE> <FONT face=Arial size=2>on 
which it anticipates charging fees.&nbsp; </FONT></STRIKE></B></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
I propose the following language regarding validation (revised from #8,
which we did not agree on).&nbsp; If we cannot reach agreement, I believe this 
at least has support:</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>
The Prior Rights on which a party bases its participation and seeks to
protect in an RPM SHOULD be </FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=2>
subject to actual validation, at least if the validity of such rights is
challenged</FONT></B><B><STRIKE> <FONT face=Arial 
size=2>validated.&nbsp;</FONT></STRIKE> </B></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
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:</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>
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.</FONT></B></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Finally I agree with Avri's comments concerning applicability to IDNs,
and perhaps we can use this language, as the final 
principle:</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>
The aforementioned principles should equally apply to both ASCII/LDH
TLDs and IDN TLDs.</FONT></B></SPAN> </div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
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.</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks</FONT></SPAN> </div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kelly Smith</FONT></SPAN> 
<BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Intel 
Corporation</FONT><B></B><B><STRIKE></STRIKE></B><B><STRIKE></STRIKE></B></SPAN>
 <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>________________________________</FONT></SPAN> </div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[</FONT></SPAN><A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');;
 return false;" href="mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank><SPAN 
lang=en-us><U><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</FONT></U></SPAN></A><SPAN 
lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>] On Behalf Of Rosette, 
Kristina</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: May 
14, 2007 2:29 PM</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: 
gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>
Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's
Meeting</FONT></SPAN> </div><BR><BR>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>All, </FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Attached is an updated proposals chart that reflects the discussion
today.&nbsp; I have also attached a redline.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Please review them and let 
me know ASAP if I have mischaracterized the "revised" proposal and/or the level 
of support.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
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?&nbsp; I will create a consolidated proposals chart shortly before our call 
on Wednesday.</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kristina </FONT></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>
&lt;&lt;Redline PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC&gt;&gt; &lt;&lt;05142007 PRO
WG Proposals Chart.DOC&gt;&gt; </FONT></SPAN></div></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>