RE: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

These are useful changes.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:04 AM
To: Kathy Kleiman; GNSO STI
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination

 

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