Clarified SRSU from Neuman - Was - RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text

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

As much of a shock as this may be to Avri, who has been grouping all contracted 
parties unnecessarily together, the JN2 proposal talks in general about a 
Single Registrant Single User and makes no reference to the type of entity that 
can apply so long as the qualifications are met.  The qualifications are based 
on use and not who you are.  This is Why Kristina's version contains the 
following language:

"And still others [KR note: I think we need to identify who - Jeff N., this is 
your text] presented a case for an SRSU exception to apply to any entity that 
could meet the basic requirements where the only user of the second-level names 
is the registry itself [regardless of whether the registry is a trademark owner 
or non-governmental entity]."

I would reword that a little to:

"And still other proposals, such as JN2, presented a case for an SRSU exception 
to apply to any entity that could meet the stringent use requirements where the 
only user of the second-level names is the registry itself, its employees, 
agents and subcontractors, irrespective of whether the registry is a "brand" or 
"non-governmental organization." 


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.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:59 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text



On 20 Jul 2010, at 11:05, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> If you could identify the NGO for which you advocate an exception that would 
> address my concern.
> 
> Eric

I am not advocating on the part of any specific NGO, but rather for the class 
of entity called NGO.  I am not at this time an advocate for any possible 
applicant though I do give advice to some.

I do not need to name a specific possible applicant who may be interested in 
such an exception - if people have not mentioned their possible applications I 
am certainly not going to mention some possibility so that the Rrs and RSP can 
chase down their business.  

WG positions are not based on specific applicants, no matter how much you and 
other members of the contracted parties want to make it so.

I merely have to indicated that on conversations with several NGOs, an interest 
has been mentioned on such an avenue being open to them and that they did not 
necessarily want to rely on an exception based solely on famous marks, though 
some do accept that a famous mark exception might serve their needs.

a.