ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] URS Elements and Examination
  • From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:16:52 -0500

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




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>