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. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am To: "'council@gnso.icann.org'" <council@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. Thanks. K
Thanks Tim. That is absolutely correct and exactly how I worded it when I said a registry/registrar workshop that some registries and registrars attended. I was very careful about that wording. And as a reminder to Kristina, the only way to amend the RRA, absent agreement by the registrars, with respect to things that fall within the picket fence is actually through a Consensus Policy. And that is only through a PDP. The UDRP falls squarely within the picket fence. We just need to clear that up as well. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:29 AM To: Rosette,Kristina Cc: 'council@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. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am To: "'council@gnso.icann.org'" <council@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. Thanks. K
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@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:29 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: 'council@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. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am To: "'council@gnso.icann.org'" <council@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. Thanks. K
participants (3)
-
Neuman, Jeff -
Rosette, Kristina -
Tim Ruiz