[council] UDRP issues report discussion

Rosette, Kristina krosette at cov.com
Sun Jun 19 02:56:11 UTC 2011

Thanks, Tim.  I didn't believe that he was speaking for the RrSG, but it's the second time he's made the same statement (which I've paraphrased) and I wanted to find out whether the statement was made and it struck me as odd that there had been no response/comment from the RrSG. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:29 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: 'council at gnso.icann.org'
Subject: RE: [council] UDRP issues report discussion

Not ignoring this request Kristina, we just want to confirm one way or the other. But I will say that the RySG councilors do not speak for the RrSG and I don't think that is what Jeff intended. I believe he was referencing discussions we have had in our House, certainly not an official position. Again, I will try to confirm an actual position.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>
Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am
To: "'council at gnso.icann.org'" <council at gnso.icann.org>

To point out the obvious:
If, as Jeff claims, the key problem is to get the bad actor registrars in line because the good actor registrars are doing the right thing, amending and changing the UDRP through a PDP is not the only solution. 
The other one is to amend the RAA accordingly.
Also, this is the second time that Jeff has referred to the statement above as coming out of the registry-registrar meeting.  I'd be interested in getting confirmation from someone from the RrSG if his characterization  is accurate.

More information about the council mailing list