ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-pro-wg] FW: gnso-pro-wg: New Definitions

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "PRO WG" <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] FW: gnso-pro-wg: New Definitions
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:55:55 -0400

How about "Rights Protection Mechanisms may consist of adoption and
implementation . . . . " 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] FW: gnso-pro-wg: New Definitions

On 17 maj 2007, at 16.10, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> I don't know if these made it to the list, so I'm forwarding 
> Victoria's suggestions.  (Thanks for pulling these together,
> Victoria.)  I had some proposed revisions so I've attached a redline 
> and a clean copy.
> RPM:  broadened to include eligibility and membership authentication 
> and second-level name selection criteria.

I think this is a good addition, but it still does not define  
eligibility and membership authentication a form of RPM, nor do i  
think it should, so does not change my view of the principles/ 


>> Rights Protection Mechanisms may achieve this purpose indirectly  
>> through the adoption and implementation of strict eligibility or  
>> membership authentication requirements and second-level name  
>> selection criteria.

as you indicate in your definition this is an indirect methods of  
achieving a similar effect, which means that it cannot be a  
subspecies of the thing being defined but is rather another thing in  

I also still believe that there may be other mechanisms, perhaps yet  
to be created, that will also achieve a similar effect while not  
actually being RPMs.

> Rights of Others:  Had so many objections to this definition that I  
> didn't even know where to start.  It's not sufficiently precise as  
> to be accurate.  Someone else want to take a stab at it?

I actually thought it was quite a good definition and did contain a  
fair degree of specificity.  Depending on other versions that may yet  
be submitted, I hope that this definition can persist in the document  
as at least an alternative definition if not a supported or agreed  
upon definition.


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy