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

[Faisal Shah <fshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am fine with these changes.


On 11/14/10 12:00 PM, "Rosaya, Lisa W." <Lisa.Rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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
>  <mailto:lisa.rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> www.bakermckenzie.com
> <http://www.bakermckenzie.com/>
>  
>  <mailto:lisa.w.rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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 <http://www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers>
> for other important information concerning this message.
>