Re: [council] Revised Statement of work for working group on protecting the legal rights of others

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Unfortunately I missed the meeting where this was finalized.  but  
since it seems that the wording is not fully understood, I have a few  
concerns/questions and some recommendations.
On 19 feb 2007, at 21.01, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

A.

> As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some
> discussion about what additional protections beyond the current  
> terms in
> the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms
> should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during  
> the
> domain name registration process, particularly during the initial  
> start
> up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants  
> perceive
> as the "best" names.


When we spoke about this topic, I though the topic was to review such  
considerations in general and not to focus on what additional  
protections beyond those currently in practice would be needed.  I  
would therefore recommend removing  'additional'  and [beyond the  
current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute  
resolution mechanisms].
It could therefore read:

As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some
discussion about what protections
should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during the
domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start
up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive
as the "best" names.

B.

First a typo

> H.      Impact on other affect parties
should be affected parties

And as this one is rather unspecific, I would suggest adding  
something like:
including potential registrants from the general public.  I.e. it  
would read:
H. Impact on other affect parties including potential registrants  
from the general public.
C.


Another question I have is what is the relation between this group  
and the IDN considerations group.  The use of IDNs and both  
translations and transliterations of marks is a complexity that does  
not seem to be covered in this charter.  I am not sure that it is  
covered in the IDN charter either.
d.  Finally to what extent is the enlarging scope of trademark rules  
that comes into play once IDNs are included taken into account by  
this or the IDN charter?
thanks
a.