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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I thought, but perhaps was wrong, that we were approaching an  
agreement that would have moved all discussion of pricing out of the  
principles and into a section of ancillary issues that perhaps  
merited attention in the overall new gTLD process, but were not  
driving principles of the PRO policy recommendations.

But perhaps I misunderstood.

a.


On 15 maj 2007, at 22.50, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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 there is for any holder of legal rights of any  
> kind to expect special treatment and require justification of or a  
> basis for Registry pricing from new gTLD entrants. I propose this  
> alternative language for #7:
>
> gTLD registry operators MAY charge fees for participation in its  
> RPM. The amount of such fees MUST be at the gTLD registry  
> operator's sole discretion.
>
> 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 all suggested principles/policy statements use the phrase  
> Legal Rights instead of Prior Rights to be consistent with our SOW.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's
> Meeting
> From: "Smith, Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, May 15, 2007 3:13 pm
> To: "Rosette,  Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>,  <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> All,
>
> 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.
> Thanks
> Kelly Smith
> Intel Corporation
> ________________________________
> From: 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
>
>
> All,
> 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.
> Kristina
> <<Redline PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC>> <<05142007 PRO WG Proposals  
> Chart.DOC>>