RE: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
- To: "Kathy Kleiman" <Kathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:14:25 -0500
Please find enclosed a couple of comments on the URS
Section....Apologize I could not get this earlier, but I was driving the
whole day from Boston to DC.
1) Section 4.2 should be changed to be more technically accurate
from "Filing an answer after a Default decision should cause the domain
name to resolve immediately to original website" to "Promptly after the
filing of an answer after a Default decision, the nameservers shall be
returned to the state in which it existed immediately prior to the
domain name being placed on hold." Same change should be made to Section
8.1. The reason should be self-evident. If not, I would be happy to
2) We need to add a section on what happens in the case of a default.
6.6 talks about what happens upon an evaluation on the merits, but there
is no section that states that if there is a Default, then the name goes
on hold. Presumably, that would be before Section 4.2.
I assume these changes are not controversial.
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: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:03 PM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
Attached is the NCSG's requests for changes to the text of the excellent
STI Report which Margie has drafted.
I hope you will find our edits consistent with the positions we have
taken all along. We offer them to further clarify and explain these
Our edits fall into two broad categories:
1. changing "should" to "shall." Especially where there are issues
involving notice and due process, we feel strongly that the word "shall"
should be used as these are protections for the registrant we negotiated
2. adding in specific language regarding the notice and due process
requirements as we understand the discussion and agreement.
All changes in the attached document are shown via "Track Changes."
These include brief changes to the Background, opening paragraphs of
each section and Annexes.
One further change that we support, and have incorporated, is the change
of IP Claims to TM Claims. I think this was Alan's edit and we agree --
and note that the STI has been using the term TM Claims in our
discussion for some time.
We hope these edits, and all our edits, advance us to the end game.
Attached for your review is the second draft of the STI Report, that
includes the Trademark Clearinghouse and URS recommendations.
Although I have received a number of comments already to the first
draft, this version does not address any of them except to change the
references of "broad consensus" to "rough consensus." I thought it
would be more appropriate to wait for additional comments before
circulating the next draft.
Senior Policy Counselor