RE: [gnso-sti] Questions regarding the Board letter
- To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Questions regarding the Board letter
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:06:02 -0800
After reading your email below and the questions you raised, which I agree with
you on, I thought about the purpose of this group and what the "questions" in
the letter are for.
The letter from the Board really only asks one question from the GNSO Council,
not the 9, 10 or 11 we have been discussing. The Board is asking for the GNSO
view on whether the staff recommended RPM's are consistent with GNSO policy on
introduction of new gTLD's. Then we can either approve the staff model or
present an alternative.
Now the Board did give this group some guidance on the discussions and that we
should consider certain concerns and questions raised by the Board in our
discussions(the 9,10 bullets), but not answer each and every question.
As you mentioned in your email and Jeff Neuman has as well some of the
questions/concerns are ridiculous, like should we have a Sunrise for existing
As much I would love to have a long debate on the bullet points, I think for
efficiencies sake we move past trying to address each concern individually and
look at the larger question asked by the Board and look to see how we answer
that one main question. Remember if we do not make a decision and have a plan
then the Board will move without us.
From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:58 PM
To: GNSO STI
Subject: [gnso-sti] Questions regarding the Board letter
On reviewing the list of Clearinghouse questions in the Board letter,
I have a few questions of my own. Perhaps my lack of training or
experience with domain IP issues is showing, and if so, I humbly apologize.
Q.1 Impact of a clearinghouse notice on a registrant: is there a
potential chilling effect on registrations if a Trademark holder
contacts a registrant before the registration is made?
I understand the concept of potential chilling effect of receiving
the IP Claims notices when trying to register a domain. But under the
staff proposals (without the GMPL), I was not aware of any notice to
trade-mark holders PRIOR to registration. The staff proposal
explicitly says that such notice must not go out before the
registration is effective so that it does not give the TM owner the
ability to preemptively register or otherwise block an otherwise
legitimate domain name. What am I missing?
Q.4 Should the Clearinghouse requirements (including the choice of IP
Claims or Sunrise processes) be applied to existing registries?
In the staff proposals, the IP Clearing house is only for use
pre-launch, and Sunrise processes are associated with new domains. So
how could either be applicable to the existing registries?