RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
Are you stating: 1. There should be no verification unless the right is challenged, and therefore, there is no cost; or 2. There should be verification regardless of whether the right is challenged, but the claimant should only pay for it if challenged. In either case, however, I don't recall that there was even a level of support. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:00 AM To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report I think there was at least support, if not agreement, that cost of verification is unnecessary (for registry and claimant) unless the legal right is challenged. So it must be subject to verification, but need not actually be verified unless a challenge. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:34 PM To: PRO WG Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report hi, On 24 maj 2007, at 02.54, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > > Second, sec 4.1.3 and 4.1.6 seem generally the same principle, I > would delete 4.1.6 or characterize it as an Alternative View. > > I agree there is overlap, but i would be more comfortable with leaving 4.1.6 and removing 4.1.3 as 4.1.6 is the stronger statement and I can think of no case or reason why a claimant to Legal Rights would not have to be able to have their claims verified. a.