Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TEXT FOR DISCUSSION WT-1

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Absolutely Richard, and sorry about that.

Simply put, when we venture far into pre-(dis)qualifying strings, we risk
getting into string disputes legalities, for example, we might find our
'string criteria' becoming a basis of trademarks arguments on their
disputes. This, in my opinion, would push ICANN further into content-like
matters. And if the ICM issue is anything to go by, then most likely the
Board will just shake its head at anything that remotely replicates that
matter. The more content-string resemblances are kept out of
our recommendations, the higher are the chances of board approval.

I hope I am a bit clearer?

kindly,

Alex

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Alex
>
> I dont understand the point you're making below.
>
> Can you rephrase it please.
>
> Thx
>
> RT
>
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>
> Furthermore, perhaps we might not wish to add to UDRP's long list of
> disputatious strings as may be interpreted as overall increasing the chances
> of delays of new gTLD program:
>
> a)
> http://konstantinoskomaitis.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-udrp-study-shows-signs-of.html
> b) http://udrpcommentaries.com/
>
> regards,
>
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks Richards,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *Point 2.   Gaming*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *The document contains this:*
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Concern has also been expressed that even well-intentioned fee
>>>    reductions or aid programs offered directly by ICANN could well be the
>>>    subject of gaming in which a commercial entity could put a token 
>>> presence in
>>>    a locale where fees were reduced, or portray a new registry as an 
>>> expression
>>>    of some community interest where none in fact exists.
>>>
>>> I think if we carefully define our 'Who can receive support' criteria we
>>> will see little or no gaming.  In particular,  I believe one of our criteria
>>> should be something like this  --- "Applicants who receive support must
>>> apply for a string that is closely reflective of the identity of the group
>>> they represent".     I believe a criteria of this nature will inhibit or
>>> eliminate gaming.
>>>
>>> As always,  comments welcome.
>>>
>>
>> My comment would be that rather than attempt to confine the applicants to
>> certain string thereby reducing their innovative choice of 'marketable' (or
>> well-resonating) string, perhaps we could suggest anti-gaming systems, that
>> would make a commercial entity shudder at the mere thought of being caught
>> violating, for example, periodic ICANN-authorised audits of how the funded
>> operators run their activities? If found violating the intent and object of
>> this program, ICANN can then revoke the gTLD contract/agreement... No same
>> business person that I know of would risk investing in such a risky
>> venture.. my comment ends..
>>
>>
>
>