RE: [gtld-council] modifications to new gTLD recommendations #3 and 6
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] modifications to new gTLD recommendations #3 and 6
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:57:17 -0400
This may be a good approach but it seems to me that both recommendations
may apply in the same challenge process. Is that correct.
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:02 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gtld-council] modifications to new gTLD
> recommendations #3 and 6
> As there seems to be a logical difference between a string
> infringing a third party right and a process infringing
> freedom of expression, is not the solution to make two
> beautifully worded recommendations, rather than one ugly
> hodge-podge we currently have ?
> So recomm 3 reads:
> Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others
> that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted
> and internationally recognized principles of law.
> Examples of such legal rights include, but are not limited
> to, the rights defined in the Paris Convention for the
> Protection of Industrial Property and in particular trade-mark rights.
> And over to Robin for a whole new recomm 21 about the
> "process" and "freedom of expression".