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>, "PRO WG" <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 21:36:56 -0400


My notes indicated that the point about payment by means other than
credit cards should go in auxiliary issues, but don't indicate that for
the fee basis point.  That doesn't mean there wasn't agreement on it;
just that it wasn't in my notes.  It also doesn't mean that we can't
decide tomorrow to move the fee basis point there, too.

Anyone have clear notes on this point?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's


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:

> 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>>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy