RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

["Peter Gustav Olson - pgo" <pgo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Mike that there was support (but I do not think agreement)
for Jeff's 1. The latest touchstone here was dot-eu, where everyone had
to be validated, which was a mess for both the registrars and the
trademark owners, and was in the vast majority of cases not necessary,
in that there was only one applicant. Thus it is my understanding that
there was support for a validation-only-if-challenged function (on the
basis of which I understand dot-asia is going forward - Edmond?)  


--------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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.