ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's Meeting
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:39:02 -0700

Avri, I would support that over the current #7.<BR><BR>Tim <BR>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: 
[gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's<BR>Meeting<BR>From: Avri 
Doria &lt;avri@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, May 15, 2007 4:35 pm<BR>To: PRO WG 

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.


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

&gt; Currently, Registries are not required to justify most of their  
&gt; price increases, and in fact, make no justification for their  
&gt; existing prices whatsoever. I would be interested in knowing what  
&gt; basis or precedent there is for any holder of legal rights of any  
&gt; kind to expect special treatment and require justification of or a  
&gt; basis for Registry pricing from new gTLD entrants. I propose this  
&gt; alternative language for #7:
&gt; gTLD registry operators MAY charge fees for participation in its  
&gt; RPM. The amount of such fees MUST be at the gTLD registry  
&gt; operator's sole discretion.
&gt; Also, many of the suggested *principles* (which are actually  
&gt; proposed policies) use the phrase Prior Rights. The SOW uses the  
&gt; phrase legal rights. There is a considerable difference. The latter  
&gt; does not, IMHO, refer solely to the rights of TM holders, famous  
&gt; names, etc. Whereas the implications of Prior Rights as is used in  
&gt; most of these policy statements implies that distinction. I propose  
&gt; that all suggested principles/policy statements use the phrase  
&gt; Legal Rights instead of Prior Rights to be consistent with our SOW.
&gt; Tim
&gt; -------- Original Message --------
&gt; Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's
&gt; Meeting
&gt; From: "Smith, Kelly W" &lt;<A 
return false;" 
&gt; Date: Tue, May 15, 2007 3:13 pm
&gt; To: "Rosette,  Kristina" &lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=krosette%40cov.com'); return 
return false;" 
&gt; All,
&gt; I propose the following alternative language for principle #7 (new  
&gt; language in red):
&gt; The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM SHOULD be  
&gt; reasonable and each gTLD applicant MUST identify in its application  
&gt; the basis of its fee calculation. on which it anticipates charging  
&gt; fees.
&gt; I propose the following language regarding validation (revised from  
&gt; #8, which we did not agree on).  If we cannot reach agreement, I  
&gt; believe this at least has support:
&gt; The Prior Rights on which a party bases its participation and seeks  
&gt; to protect in an RPM SHOULD be subject to actual validation, at  
&gt; least if the validity of such rights is challenged validated.
&gt; I propose the following new principle (based on the questionable  
&gt; inclusion of U.S. registrations as a rights basis in the .asia  
&gt; launch), and am happy to hear suggestions regarding alternative  
&gt; language:
&gt; To the extent a gTLD is intended for/targeted to a particular  
&gt; geographic region, the Prior Right on which a rights owner bases  
&gt; its participation in the RPM SHOULD originate from the laws of a  
&gt; country in that region.
&gt; Finally I agree with Avri's comments concerning applicability to  
&gt; IDNs, and perhaps we can use this language, as the final principle:
&gt; The aforementioned principles should equally apply to both ASCII/ 
&gt; LDH TLDs and IDN TLDs.
&gt; Kristina, let me know if you'd like me to reflect these in a  
&gt; further redline, or if you'll be collecting everyone's comments  
&gt; into a new version before the call tomorrow.
&gt; Thanks
&gt; Kelly Smith
&gt; Intel Corporation
&gt; ________________________________
&gt; From: owner-<A 
return false;" 
&gt; <A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=wg%40icann.org'); 
return false;" 
 On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
&gt; Sent: May 14, 2007 2:29 PM
&gt; To: <A 
return false;" 
&gt; Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's  
&gt; Meeting
&gt; All,
&gt; Attached is an updated proposals chart that reflects the discussion  
&gt; today.  I have also attached a redline.  As you will see, I have  
&gt; indicated the current level of support (based on my notes) for the  
&gt; proposals we discussed and as we discussed revising them.  Please  
&gt; review them and let me know ASAP if I have mischaracterized the  
&gt; "revised" proposal and/or the level of support.
&gt; Tim, once you've had a chance to review, would you please post  
&gt; whether any of these specific points could be used instead of your  
&gt; principles 1-6?  I will create a consolidated proposals chart  
&gt; shortly before our call on Wednesday.
&gt; Kristina
&gt; &lt;&lt;Redline PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC&gt;&gt; &lt;&lt;05142007 PRO WG 
&gt; Chart.DOC&gt;&gt;


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy