ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Updated letter to the GNSO Council

  • To: "Rosaya, Lisa W." <Lisa.Rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Updated letter to the GNSO Council
  • From: "Joi White" <jwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:54:43 -0800

Well stated, Lisa. I am fully in favor of making these revisions to our final 
letter to the GNSO Council. 

Looking forward to our call tomorrow,

On Nov 14, 2010, at 11:01 AM, "Rosaya, Lisa W." <Lisa.Rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

> Dear team,
> After reviewing the materials and MP3s from our prior calls as well as 
> others' comments on the issues, I'd like to propose the following revisions 
> to Annex I of the letter.
> 1. Amend the Notes in section B.v. entitled  "Cybersquatting - Recommendation 
> #1 as follows:
> "Notes: 1) it may be helpful to see the effect of RPMs in the new gTLDs 
> space, particularly the interplay between the UDRP and URS, prior to engaging 
> in any PDP process. 2) There may be a dependency with WHOIS studies, which 
> are presently in the midst of an RFP process and implementation, and 3) in 
> addition to the foregoing notes, several members of this drafting team have 
> also expressed reservations about proceeding with a PDP process that may 
> result in changes to the UDRP at this time because of the significant 
> resources presently being devoted to the new gTLD process and the significant 
> burdens already placed on ICANN's present compliance staff."
> (Note, additionally the small roman numbers should be fixed so as to start 
> re-numbering after B.)
> 2. Based upon the rankings submitted by 9/24 deadline, the average sequence 
> for the recommendations on Cybersquatting/UDRP was 6.44 and average sequence 
> of Uniformity of Contracts was 3.5. On 10/25, over one month after the IDT 
> members were required to submit their rankings of the RAPWG's 16 
> recommendations, James Bladel submitted rankings for the recommendations 
> Cybersquatting/UDRP - assigning it a ranking of 5 - and Uniformity of 
> Contracts - assigning it a ranking of 15. James did not rank the other 14 
> recommendations. James' rankings resulted in the average sequences for the 
> Cybersquatting/UDRP and Uniformity of Contracts recommendations to be tied at 
> 5.7.
> On the 10/25 call, both Lisa and Joi raised objections to the ranking of the 
> Cybersquatting /UDRP recommendation being kept at a 5* and expressed that a 
> middle ranking or, for Joi, even a lower than middle ranking would be 
> preferred. Mikey stated these objections would be noted, but they do not 
> appear in either the letter or the attached matrix. (*The ranking was later 
> changed to a 4 due to a tie in the average sequencing and the level of 
> consensus of the RAPWG on these items.)
> With the above in mind, I propose the following footnotes be inserted in the 
> Notes sections of B.v. and B.vi., respectively:
> a. Additional note to be included after existing text in Note section in B.v. 
> / Cybersquatting
> "Two members of the IDT objected to the ranking of this item being 4 and 
> expressed that a middle or even lower than middle ranking (e.g., in the 7 to 
> 10 range) would be more appropriate."
> b. Additional note to be included after existing text in Note section in 
> B.vi./ Uniformity of Contracts
> "There was a wide dispersion in the IDT in terms of rankings for this 
> recommendation: Five members of the IDT assigned a rank of 1 or 2 to this 
> item, two members assigned this item rankings of 5 and 7, and the three 
> remaining members ranked this items as a 10, 14 and 15."
> I look forward to our call tomorrow.
> Thank you and 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: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:07 AM
> To: gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Updated letter to the GNSO Council
> Dear All,
> Following the feedback from Greg and Berry, please find attached for your 
> review an updated version of the letter to the GNSO Council which 
> incorporates their suggestions.
> With best regards,
> 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. 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy