[Gnso-rpm-protection] Revision to Question 4

Thu Jun 15 17:58:27 UTC 2017

Steve:

Let's use language that isn't biased -- the questions about rules of additional RPMs should not be called "concerns" -- this exercise is not a review of these services.  We are in a data gathering exercise.  Some folks on this list have concerns that the services exist at all and others would be unhappy that "premium" names (like the word LOVE) would be blocked by a TM holder across scores of TLDs.  Some think that they go too far and others think they don't go far enough.  Both positions are interesting, but irrelevant to our exercise.  Let's keep value propositions out of our questions.

On the substance, think it is better not to try to list every question.  That's a waste of time.  Let's collect the rules from the service providers, which should answer all of the questions.  For DPML, we have Ts&Cs that I could provide that should answer all the questions.  If they don't, we always could do a specific follow-up, if necessary.

Thanks.

Jon

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, Jon. Perhaps we should list your examples and other specific concerns as 4(a) through 4(z)? Rather than being a limiting factor, I feel this could help guide our review of the rules and focus on those issues of most concern. As currently stated, I feel the question is rather vague.
> 
> Steve
> 
> From: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.co <mailto:jon at donuts.co>>
> Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:51 AM
> To: "Steven M. Levy, Esq." <slevy at accentlawgroup.com <mailto:slevy at accentlawgroup.com>>
> Cc: "gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Revision to Question 4
> 
> I don't think the changes are needed. The question already asks for the rules of these services. What's the point of asking specific questions about specific rules for specific services?  Why pick out a couple questions when many other rules are important to different customers (e.g. do they permit blocks of single character trademarks, what about overrides, etc.). Let's keep it simple and ask for the rules.
> 
> Also, do we have a subgroup list we should be using?
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com <mailto:slevy at accentlawgroup.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, again, to Paul for stepping up and leading our sub-group.  I expect this will be a very efficient and productive effort.
>> 
>> Further to our call yesterday, I’ve drafted a suggested revision to Q.4 of the Draft Questions for our sub-team:
>> 
>> 4.         What are each registry operator’s rules for each type of private offering (noting that some new gTLD registry operators offer more than one version of a DPML service)?  Of particular importance, are there exceptions to DPML blocks for domains classified by the Registry as “premium” (or a similar elevated status) and what is the impact on a purchased DPML block when a Registry is sold to, or acquired from another owner?
>> 
>> I look forward to any comments and questions from sub-team members.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>> 
>> <Accent Law Logo NEW Very Small[1].png>
>> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>> Accent Law Group, Inc.
>> 301 Fulton St.
>> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147
>> United States
>> Phone: +1-215-327-9094
>> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <mailto:slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>>  <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/>
>> ________________________________________
>> Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list
>> Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/attachments/20170615/e57dacb9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/attachments/20170615/e57dacb9/signature.asc>