Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart - contd.
given the press for time, i sent the first set 1-8. in this email, i will comment on the rest:
re 9: I can support that.
re 10: I can support the first half
New gTLD registry operators SHOULD require Validation of Prior Rights as a prerequisite to participation in the RPM
but requiring someone to show Prior right for any registration seems a bit strong to me.
re 11A: I would refer a MUST, but can accept a SHOULD
re 11B; i think you need an 'if' as the second word
re 16b: a picky point
RPM SHOULD originate from the laws of a country in that region.
what if the region is local to the country and has its own laws? or vise versa. I would suggest something like:
-- RPM SHOULD originate from the laws in effect for that region. --
r 18: I certainly support the principle here. but, I am not sure that the use of a model necessarily calls for less scrutiny. It is possible that an applicant might pick an inappropriate model for the type of TLD being applied for, or it is possible that the applicant might misapply the mechanism. i recommend changing:
and eliminates the need for ICANN to scrutinize this aspect of an application during the new TLD process.
and may eliminate the need for ICANN to scrutinize this aspect of an application during the new TLD process.
r 20, 21, 22: support
r 23, 24, 25; support, but if we move fee related comments, then for consistency i believe these should be moved as well. if we decide that we don't need to move fees to a seperate section, then i am fine with leaving them where they are.
r 26; i am not sure why this price should be capped as it is a business to business expense as opposed to a business to individual expense. and while I believe that some care should relate when a service is sold to individuals, I not sure why this would pertain to b2b interactions.
r 27; for clarity it may be useful to refer to use the same wording as was used in the RN docs for when TLD register 3rd+ levels.
r 28; i think i can probably support it, but i have some questions:
Registries SHOULD institute
While I think this may be a good alternative to an RPM, I am not sure why this is a SHOULD n the case of an applicant that has included an RPM.
A registry MAY institute ..
In cases where a registry institutes an RPM it MAY also institute a rapid suspension procedure. In cases where a registry does not institute an RPM it SHOULD institute a rapid suspension procedure. A rapid suspension procedure is a process in which ...
... institute a rapid suspension procedure in which a response team of independent experts (qualified UDRP panelists)
I would think that the independent experts would determine whether the claim is justified and iff justified should the suspension occur. As it reads, they get a claim, they decide it is valid as quickly as possible and then the suspension occurs. I know this probably not what was intended, but it reads that way to me.
A possible rewrite:
... institute a rapid suspension procedure in which a response team of independent experts (qualified UDRP panelists) will be retained to make determinations of validity shortly after they receive a short and simple statement of a claim involving a well-known or otherwise inherently distinctive mark and a domain name clearly used in bad faith, or for which no conceivable good faith basis exists. If and only if the expert panel decides the claim is valid then it MUST result in an immediate suspension of resolution of the domain name, but will not prejudice either party's election to pursue another dispute mechanism.
The claim and procedural requirements SHOULD be modeled after the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
What is the reason for this being a SHOULD instead of a MAY? Is it the only reasonable available source?
Kristina, thanks for all of work on this. While I am being somewhat picky on all of this I do appreciate the pressure it is putting you under as a chair trying to do the right thing and also complete the work on time. Sometimes, it is an almost impossible conundrum and can make your brain hurt. So thanks.