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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

thank you for your wording of the exception.  i agree that it should be based 
on use. 

and i have only been grouping you in terms of the tendency to exclude material 
you don't like.
i know the material you want to exclude differs.
i even recognize that you support different recommendations.

so it was more of a meta-grouping.

a.

On 20 Jul 2010, at 12:20, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.