Re: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination

[Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
Tx for the quick and thorough review. I am fine with all of these changes.
Does anyone object?
Kathy

> 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