[gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Question#10 (Appropriate Strings for Notification)

[Rebecca Tushnet]

That's because it came from words that weren't mine.

If no one at all is interested in defending the "expanding the match"
proposal that this thread is supposed to cover, does that mean that we
have a consensus that it's not worth pursuing?  I'm not sure what the
procedure for determining that would be.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759


On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
> I'm sorry but these 2 statements seem to be in conflict with each other.....
>
> I don't in fact think that the TMCH contains names of those individuals who've been wrongly deterred from registering domain names they had a right to register.
>
> As has been discussed for a while, I think it contains other relevant evidence, like more words like "cloud" and "hotel" that prima facie don't seem likely to justify preemptive rights across new gTLDs.
>
> I am more concerned about the latter but must say I really don't understand what is meant by the former.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 25 Apr 2017, at 16:22, Scott Austin <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't in fact think that the
>>     TMCH contains names of those individuals who've been wrongly deterred
>>     from registering domain names they had a right to register.  As has
>>     been discussed for a while, I think it contains other relevant
>>     evidence, like more words like "cloud" and "hotel" that prima facie
>>     don't seem likely to justify preemptive rights across new gTLDs.