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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Mike,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
While it may seem that the world is ruled by IP interests, I would like
to think that isn't true (although this WG may be). But maybe I'm just an 
idealist. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between&nbsp;the 
privilege of *defensively* protecting rights and the mechanisms that resolve 
disputes after the fact. The UDRP is a very cost effective way to do the 
latter.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
The privilege of being granted defensive protection mechanisms not
provided for in local or national law should not come at everyone elses 
expense. If the legislative process, or some or other regulatory process can be 
gamed to provide for that, so be it. I guess we'll meet you on the Hill. But as 
ICANN repeatedly claims, it is not a regulatory body, does not control prices, 
and the #7 you propose is not within ICANN's scope to mandate by their own 
repeated claims. The recent attempts by registrars and others in regards to the 
current registry agreements should make that clear.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
And why should registries be concerned with improving your bottom line
at the expense of their own. That argument just doesn't hold water. You are the 
IP holder. The cost of protecting your IP is yours. </div>
<div><BR><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: 
"Mike Rodenbaugh" &lt;mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, May 15, 2007 7:58 
pm<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, &nbsp;"Smith, Kelly 
W"<BR>&lt;kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: "Rosette, Kristina" 
&lt;krosette@xxxxxxx&gt;, &nbsp;&lt;gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage v\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage o\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage w\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage .shape   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

</STYLE>
<o:SmartTagType name="country-region" 
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
 name="place" 
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType>
<STYLE>
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage st1\:*  {behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }

</STYLE>

<STYLE>
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage /* Font Definitions */ @font-face   
{font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp 
#wmMessage li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.MsoNormal   {margin:0in; 
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage a:link, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlink  
 {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage a:visited, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage 
span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed   {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage p.MsoPlainText, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage 
li.MsoPlainText, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.MsoPlainText   {margin:0in; 
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle17   {mso-style-type:personal-reply; 
font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @page Section1   {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 
1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.Section1   {page:Section1;}

</STYLE>

<DIV class=Section1>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Currently, as far as I know, registries and registrars are the only
businesses in the world who purport to charge any other entity to complain that 
the first party is or likely will be infringing or materially contributing to 
the infringement of the second party&rsquo;s legal rights.&nbsp; That needs to 
stop, and eventually logic will prevail and it will stop, through policy, 
legislation and/or litigation.&nbsp; The hope was that ICANN stakeholders could 
agree to some binding policy rather than pursue other 
avenues.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
As a potential political compromise up to this point, realizing how long
the registries and registrars have been benefiting so nicely from this reality, 
I have been willing to accept that maybe they could seek to recover up to 
<I><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">half</SPAN></I> of their <I><SPAN 
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">costs</SPAN></I>
 of this from complaining parties.&nbsp; This I thought generous, and
despite the fact that every other business in the world must provide these 
complaint mechanisms as a cost of doing business, and accordingly charge their 
customers more.&nbsp; Registries and registrars should do that too, their 
customers benefit from a cleaner domainspace and so do the registration 
providers.&nbsp; These businesses certainly should not be arguing that rights 
protection mechanisms should be a profit center for themselves.&nbsp; They even 
seem unwilling to agree to a general policy principle that their pricing should 
be reasonably based on their costs? &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Unreasonable, unjustified costs will lead to less adoption of any rights
protection mechanism, therefore to more abusive registrations.&nbsp; Abusive 
registrations have high social and financial cost to the public and impose 
higher litigation costs upon businesses.&nbsp; Registries and registrars need 
to accept more of the burden of minimizing abusive registrations which they 
enable and profit from, and need to spread that cost among their registrants, 
rather than seeking to profit from rights protection 
mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I support this as principle/policy stmt 
#7:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><B><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM MUST be
reasonably close to their actual or expected costs<FONT color=red><SPAN 
style="COLOR: red">.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Arial color=navy 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I also support Kelly and Avri&rsquo;s other 
principles as stated.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoPlainText><FONT face=Arial color=black size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mike 
Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><FONT face=Arial color=black size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Sr. Legal 
Director<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoPlainText><FONT face=Arial color=black size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yahoo! 
Inc.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt; COLOR: navy">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=black size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
NOTICE:&nbsp; This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.&nbsp; If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication 
and any attachments.</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT face="Times 
New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Tahoma 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
 owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of </SPAN></B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B><SPAN 
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:51 
PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Smith,Kelly 
W<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Rosette,Kristina; 
gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> 
RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's 
Meeting</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
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:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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.</SPAN></FONT></B><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>Tim 
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt"><BR><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-------- 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;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">All,</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I propose the 
following alternative language for</SPAN></FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">principle</SPAN></FONT> <FONT 
face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">#7 (new 
language in red):</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT> <BR><B><FONT 
face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">
The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM SHOULD be
reasonable and each gTLD applicant MUST identify <FONT color=red><SPAN 
style="COLOR: red">in</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </B><B><FONT face=Arial 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">its 
application the basis <FONT color=red><SPAN style="COLOR: red">of its fee 
calculation.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><S> </S></B><B><S><FONT face=Arial 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">on 
which it anticipates charging fees.&nbsp; 
</SPAN></FONT></S></B><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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:</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
The Prior Rights on which a party bases its participation and seeks to
protect in an RPM SHOULD be <FONT color=red><SPAN style="COLOR: red">
subject to actual validation, at least if the validity of such rights is
challenged</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><S> </S></B><B><S><FONT face=Arial 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">validated.&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></S> </B><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
I propose the following new principle (based on the questionable
inclusion of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place 
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
 registrations as a rights basis in the .asia launch), and am happy to
hear suggestions regarding alternative 
language:</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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.</SPAN></FONT></B><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Finally I agree with Avri's comments concerning applicability to IDNs,
and perhaps we can use this language, as the final 
principle:</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
The aforementioned principles should equally apply to both ASCII/LDH
TLDs and IDN TLDs.</SPAN></FONT></B> <o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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.</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">Thanks</SPAN></FONT> <o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">Kelly Smith</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Intel Corporation</SPAN></FONT> 
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">________________________________</SPAN></FONT> <o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [</SPAN></FONT><A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');;
 return false;" href="mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank><FONT 
face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT face=Arial 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">] On Behalf Of 
Rosette, Kristina</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Sent: May 14, 2007 2:29 
PM</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 
FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT 
face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's
Meeting</SPAN></FONT> <o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">All, </SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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; </SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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.</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">Kristina </SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
&lt;&lt;Redline PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC&gt;&gt; &lt;&lt;05142007 PRO
WG Proposals Chart.DOC&gt;&gt; 
</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>