RE: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Good job all.  I have a few comments in this draft.

 

I just think we should avoid the use of terms like "lawful" or "non-abusive".  
Although something may not violate this policy, it may otherwise be "abusive" 
under other laws (defamation, libel, consumer protections laws, etc.).  So in 
this version, I have taken out some of the loaded terms, but have hopefully 
kept the spirit of everything you all did.

 

For example, this sentence:  

 

Such claims, if found by the Examiner to be proved based on its evaluation of 
all evidence presented, shall result in a finding of non-abusive registration 
for the Respondent.

 

I changed to:

 

Such claims, if found by the Examiner to be proved based on its evaluation of 
all evidence presented, shall result in a finding in favor of the Respondent.

 

And this one that talks of "lawful activities":

 

§  Trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain 
names, are of lawful activities.  Such conduct, however, may be abusive in a 
given case depending on the circumstances of the dispute. The Examiner will 
review each case on its merits.

 

I changed to "are not indicia of abuse under this policy":

 

§  Trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain 
names, are of themselves not indicia of bad faith under this policy.  Such 
conduct, however, may be abusive in a given case depending on the circumstances 
of the dispute. The Examiner will review each case on its merits.

 

I will not be on the call on Friday, but I think we have made a lot of progress 
on this one.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy



________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:28 PM
To: GNSO STI
Subject: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination

 

Ladies & Gentlemen of the STI:

 

As promised, Mark, Zahid, Paul, Konstantinos and I worked together by phone on 
Wednesday, and since by email,
to review the proposed URS elements and come up with a formulation of language 
that may be a workable solution. 

In our discussion, we referenced three sources: the IRT Report, the UDRP and 
Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service Policy.
The language we drafted started with Section 7 of the IRT Report, the 
Examination Section. We then added and completed the 
UDRP language so that Sections 4 a, b and c are included in their entirety, and 
without change. We supplemented with
"safe harbor" language drawn directly from Section 4 of the Nominet Policy 
(http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/?contentId=5239)

We attach a draft of the proposed Examination language for your review and 
comment and our discussion on the call tomorrow.

Best,
Kathy

Attachment: URS Examination 12-3 JJN.doc
Description: URS Examination 12-3 JJN.doc