Re: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

["Rosaya, Lisa W." <Lisa.Rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I recall the WhoIs dependency being raised by, I believe, Mary and she had a 
bad connection and was unable to fully expound upon the issue; however, Joi 
then brought up the issue for discussion in a subsequent call. 

It would seem to make sense for this to be a dependency if for no other reason, 
accurate WhoIs information often detrimentally impacts the overall 
effectiveness of the UDRP. 

Best regards,

Lisa 



Lisa W. Rosaya 
Baker & McKenzie LLP 
1114 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, NY 10036 
Tel: +1 212 626 4557 
Fax: +1 212 310 1659 
lisa.rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
www.bakermckenzie.com 

Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss 
Verein
 

From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 02:46 PM
To: 'Greg Aaron' <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Marika Konings' 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council 
 


Hi all,

 

Greg,

·         +1 on your 1st bullet.

·         +1 on your 2nd bullet.  I checked the old matrix responses and could 
not find mention of a WHOIS dependency to Cybersquatting, nor do I recall how 
it was added.  It must have been during our discussions on the call.  I do not 
agree that this is a dependency and should be removed.

 

One other bit of feedback on the letter…..

 

Because we have 5 recommendations labeled with “Refer to Council,” I suggest we 
be more explicit in advising the GNSO Council what “Refer to Council” really 
means.  I reference the 4th sentence in the Recommended Approach section.  I 
think it will benefit to advise the Council that they should perform the 
following:

1.       review each section of the RAP Final report that corresponds to 
recommendation, where significant consensus was not achieved

2.       request for additional input or research to become better informed of 
the recommendation (optional)

3.       and then vote  the recommendation up or down and bring closure

4.       any others we should include???

 

…and now for a question of probability….

 

Not having experienced how the GNSO Council approves or declines multiple 
recommendations from a pre-PDP, I begin to ponder the possibility of a 
recommendation with “unanimous consensus” from the RAP WG and High 
prioritization by the RAPIMP team NOT being passed by the GNSO Council.  We 
were chartered with prioritizing recommendations that had yet to be approved or 
denied for action; so I am curious if there were underlying assumptions to 
priority assignments where unanimous consensus correlated to Council approval.

 

Many kudos to Marika, Greg & Mikey for this effort.  In fact, I think this 
should be defined as a closing deliverable for all PDP Final reports before 
submission to Council.

 

 

Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://infinityportals.com

720.839.5735

 

From: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:27 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

 

Hello; two items:

 

1.       Under the Malicious Use entry, the notes say “Preference for PDP 
approach even if desired outcome is not policy but best practices.”  The “if” 
is confusing, since it accidentally implies that policy is a possible outcome.  
 I suggest: “Preference to use PDP process; outcome to be best practices.”

 

2.       Cybersquatting: the notes section says “There may be a dependency with 
WHOIS studies.”  I can’t remember what that dependency was.  Can anyone refresh 
my memory?

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:00 PM
To: gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

 

Dear All,

 

Following today's meeting, please find attached the latest version of the 
proposed letter to the GNSO Council which incorporates the edits discussed on 
the call.You'll find attached a clean as well as a redline version. Please 
review the letter carefully. You are requested to share any comments, edits, 
suggestions on the mailing list prior to next week's call. The objective of the 
next meeting is to finalize the letter and submit it to the GNSO Council 
immediately following the call to meet the 15 November publication deadline for 
Cartagena.

 

Thanks,

 

Marika

Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal Revenue 
Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes 
of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code 
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related 
matter.

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has 
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and 
then immediately delete this message.  Please visit 
www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers  for other important information concerning 
this message.