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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Mike,  Thanks for these.
 
All, here's what is in my notes:
 
4.1.4  There was no Agreement on the original version, which was "If a new gTLD 
elects to use a Sunrise process as its RPM: 

§       it should restrict eligible Prior Rights to those owned at least as 
early as [that date that is its gTLD application submission date or  its 
selection as a new gTLD] (e.g., national trademark registrations that issued as 
of the "critical date" or arising from applications filed before the critical 
data as long as the resulting registration issues before the Sunrise period 
begins);"

 

During our call on Monday, the current version was proposed and agreed upon.  

 

With regard to your question, the idea was not to narrow the scope, per se, but 
to set a "critical date" to avoid, for example, the Benelux registration 
workaround to the .eu date-cutoffs.

 

4.1.3 and 4.1.6 are not the same.  Related, but not the same.

 

4.1.3 goes to the circumstances under which a party is required to have its 
Legal Rights authenticated  

4.1.6 is more of a threshold issue -- if it's not possible to authenticate a 
Legal Right (for whatever reason), it can't be included as a basis for 
participation in an RPM.  (This is intended to deal more with a "type" of Legal 
Right than a specific one claimed by a specific party.)  

 

4.2.4  The SHOULD version was the initial one.  During our call on Monday, it 
become clear that there wouldn't be Agreement on it and probably not Support 
either.  By changing it to MAY, we were able to reach Support.  

 
Let me know if you have questions or if anyone has different information in 
their notes.
 
K


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:55 PM
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
        
        

        Kristina, this looks really good and I much appreciate all your effort. 
 I have a few suggested edits in attached doc, and three substantive issues for 
potential discussion and clarification.  First,

         

        4.1.4:  Agreement that if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process 
RPM, then it SHOULD restrict eligible Legal Rights in such a manner as to 
discourage abusive registration.  [I don't understand this 2d clause.  Does 
this mean Registries should narrow the scope of rights that can be protected, 
to discourage gaming of the RPM process?  I don't think there was Agreement on 
that.]  

         

        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.

         

        Third, 

         

        4.2.4  Support for the principle that if a new gTLD elects to use a 
Sunrise Process as its RPM and second-level names are not awarded on a 
First-Come, First-Served basis, then competing applicants MAY be provided with 
an opportunity to reach an allocation decision between/among themselves.  [I 
think there was Support that such an opportunity SHOULD (or even MUST?) be 
provided.  I see no reason not to provide it.]

         

         

         

        Mike Rodenbaugh

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:31 PM
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

         

        All, 

        Attached is the current draft of the report.  Here's what changed since 
last night's version. 

        Added Kelly's Introduction. 

        Added definitions.  I used the definitions I suggested this morning 
minus my subsequent revision to RPM.  I indicated that there has not been 
discussion of the Rights of Others section.

        Created a fee-specific section in Outcomes.   All fee-related 
principles and proposals are here.  Intro makes clear there are no levels of 
support.

        Created a new RPM section in Outcomes.  All new RPM proposals (Peter's, 
Mike's, and mine) are here.  Intro makes clear that there's been no decision 
and there's outstanding work.

        Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support, Alternative View. 
 I used the following methodology.  I started with the chart I circulated last 
night and re-characterized the levels of support based on the postings today.  
If only one person objected to a proposal, I characterized the support as 
Agreement.  If only one person objected to a proposal and provided their own 
suggestion, I characterized support for the original proposal as Agreement and 
identified the objector's suggestion as Alternative View.  I characterized the 
level of support as Agreement ONLY if there was unanimity OR there was only one 
objection.   Please check these carefully.  Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT 
intentional.  (Avri, I integrated your comments in #16 in way that I think you 
would find agreeable.  Please check 4.2.5))  Finally, I listed in Outstanding 
work everything that had not been substantively discussed and/or had not 
resulted in level of support.

        -*- 

        The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not be 
consistent.  I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect agreed-upon 
terms.  I'm sure there's something that I did or did not do that is not 
mentioned here.  Any and all omissions are unintentional.

        K 

        <<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07 17_29.DOC>>