RE: [gnso-sti] Questions regarding the Board letter

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,



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 
registries.



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.





Jeff







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Alan Greenberg
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?





Alan