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 . . . . "
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
To: PRO WG
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