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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's exactly why I propose that my simpler method of addressing SRSU,
Exceptions, and Compliance is better. In my opinion and others, what JN2
describes is SRMU, not SRSU.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Clarified SRSU from Neuman - Was - RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised
SRSU text
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 11:20 am
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


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.