RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others"

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ute,
 
The point is that it should be up to the WG to make recommendations.
The SoW should not make the recommendations for them.  We are not at a
point where we are approving anything yet so no objection is necessary.
That is why we are forming the WG.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ute Decker
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:57 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working
Group on "Protecting the rights of others"



In response to Chuck's edits: 

The additional section on the formation of the working group is very
helpful as a basis for discussion on the call, thanks (the timelines are
more than ambitious though).  The edits to the 'Suggested Outline of
Woking Group Work Plan' section all seem helpful.  However, the
suggested changes to the 'proposed purpose' section are problematic.    

E.g., Chuck's edits would include:  "This could include recommendations
for practices that attempt to minimize abusive registration activities
that affect the legal rights o others. That could include measures to
discourage the registration of domain names that infringe intellectual
property rights and minimize abusive registrations."  (1st para,
sentences 2 &3).  

We understand these two sentences to mean that the adoption by new
gTLD/sTLD registries of policies or mechanisms to prevent abusive
registrations should be optional.  If that is correct, we object.  A
requirement for mechanisms to protect the rights of others (including
preventive mechanisms) against abusive registrations is essential.  See,
for example, Terms of Reference 2, Paragraph 13, GNSO Initial Report,
Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains, July 2006 calling for the
introduction of policies to "address domain name registration
violations", as well as the message circulated by Bruce just a few weeks
ago (and attached again).  If the edits serve another purpose (e.g.
reflect the status of the PDP Dec05 work) this should be clarified in a
way that carries forward and does not distract from the understanding
that protection against abusive registrations will be a requirement for
new TLDs.

 

Apologies that I will not be able to join the call tonight.  I take it
that thankfully Kristina will be on for the IPC.   

 

Best wishes

Ute

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 01 February 2007 14:06
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group
on "Protecting the rights of others"
Importance: High

 

Note that I mistakenly sent this to the RN-WG list instead of the
Council.  Please accept my apologies; I wanted to send it out sooner.  I
hope there is time to review it before today's meeting.

 

Chuck

 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:58 PM
To: RN-WG Mailing List (gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on
"Protecting the rights of others"
Importance: High

I would like to first of all thank Kristina and Ute for their efforts in
revising the outline of the SoW for the proposed Working Group on
"Protecting the rights of others".  I appreciate the work they did to
incorporate the edits that several of us suggested.

 

The attached document contains some edits that some of us from the RyC
recommend be made before the Council takes action on the SoW in our
meeting tomorrow.  Note that the edits are highlighted using the Word
tracking function.  I will be happy to answer questions about the
suggested edits on this list prior to the meeting and in our meeting
tomorrow.  

 

Please note that I added at the end of the document several paragraphs
from the RN-WG approved SoW.  My intent in doing this was to hopefully
help us as the Council be able to approve a document tomorrow that will
facilitate a quick startup of the WG.  In particular, I added the
paragraphs relating to the following:

Formation of the Working Group; Voting; Membership; Working Timeline.
Note that the Membership paragraphs include language about an interim
chair and permanent chair.  Except for the timeline, I simply cut and
pasted the text from the RN-WG; for the timeline, I changed the language
to correspond to what I think to be the targets that may be desired by
the Council.

 

Chuck